Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, said to be possessing the requisite qualification and eligibility and having offered her candidature for the post of Junior Engineer/Junior Technical Assistant under the Rajasthan Rural Development and Panchayati Raj State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1998 (for short 'the Rules of 1998') pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.03.2013 (Annexure -5), has filed this writ petition challenging the validity of newly added proviso to Rule 14 of the Rules of 1998 vide notification dated 06.03.2013 while claiming that the action of the State Government of not providing relaxation in the upper age limit to the employees working under the Integrated Watershed Management Programme is discriminatory and, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside.
(2.) THE petitioner, working as Consultant with the Panchayat Samiti, Luni in the Integrated Watershed Management Programme, is aggrieved of the fact that she would not be given the benefit of relaxation in the upper age limit as provided to the persons working under the MGNREGA or any scheme of the department of the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj or under any project of the Education Department in the State. It is contended by the petitioner that she is discharging the duties similar to the duties discharged by the persons working under the MGNREGA or any scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj or under any project of Department of Education in the State and, therefore, she is also entitled for relaxation in the upper age limit. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the respondents have provided age relaxation to the persons, who are discharging similar type of duties like the petitioner, there is no justification for different treatment to the persons like the petitioner, who is working under the Integrated Watershed Management Programme. According to the learned counsel, there is no intelligible differentia in treating different the candidates, who are engaged in particular Government schemes from other persons, who have actual working experience while working under the Integrated Watershed Management Programme. It is contended that the baseless differentiation has no relation with the object sought to be achieved.
(3.) HAVING gone through the pleadings and after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any merit in the challenge of the petitioner to the validity of the impugned newly added proviso to Rule 14 of the Rules of 1998.;