- (1.) HEARD Mr. Akshat Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned AAG for the respondents -
(2.) THE validity of the following proviso added to Rule 265 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996 as introduced by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (II -Amendment) Rules, 2012 has been challenged: "(xi) the upper age limit mentioned above, for the person who is continuously working on contract basis under any scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchyati Raj as Junior Technical Assistant, Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine (except engaged through placement agency), LDC Lekha Sahayak, Co -ordinator IEC, Co -ordinator Training, Coordinator Supervision or on any post, shall be relaxed by a period equal to the service rendered by him, subject to maximum of 5 years." Thereby except to those working on contract basis on being engaged through placement agency under any of the schemes and in the posts referred to therein, relaxation in the upper age limit, otherwise prescribed, by a period equal to the service rendered by other candidates, subject to maximum of 5 years, had been accorded. The impugnment of the validity of this amendment is principally on the ground that the exclusion of the persons, engaged through placement agency though performing similar works, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) IT is submitted at the Bar that a similar challenge pertaining to the second proviso to Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 as amended vide the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2013 whereby a distinction was sought to be introduced for grant of bonus marks by way of weightage contingent on the length of experience as referred to therein acquired by the persons engaged on the post of Junior Technical Assistant, Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Coordinator IEC, Coordinator Training, Coordinator Supervision in MANREGA or any scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the State, however, excluding those recruited through placement agency, had been held to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India by a coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in series of writ petitions, the lead case being Mitendra Singh Rathore & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1723/2013, vide judgment and order dated 30.07.2013] and consequently, the impugned second proviso to Rule 273 had been read down as hereunder: "Provided also that in case of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of such weightage as may be specified by the State Government for the marks obtained in Senior Secondary or its equivalent examination and such marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience exceeding on year acquired by persons engaged on the post of Junior Technical Assistant (J.T.A.), Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Co -ordinator IEC, Coordinator Training, Coordinator Supervision in MANREGA or in any other scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchyati Raj in the State.";