Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) ON 25th February, 2015, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner prayed for an adjournment of the matter and was allowed to argue the matter by the next date positively. Time was prayed for and allowed on 12th March, 2015, 27th March, 2015 and 8th April, 2015, and again on 7th July, 2015. Today, neither the counsel nor the petitioner is present to prosecute the writ proceedings. No request for adjournment has been made either.
(2.) THIS is second round of litigation by the petitioner. Earlier writ application being SBCWP No. 9971/2013 (Umesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) was disposed off by this Court on 19th June, 2013, with a direction to the petitioner to address a detailed representation to respondent No. 2 (The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner), who shall examine the case of the petitioners for the purpose of treating them within the age limit in the light of the judgment in SBCWP No. 1839/2009 (Smt. Shailesh Verma & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. connected petitions), and would pass necessary orders. In compliance, the respondent No. 2 made a detailed order dated 5th July, 2013 (Annexure -6), declining the claim of the petitioner for relaxation in the upper age limit of 35 years, as contemplated under Rule 15(x) of the Rajasthan Education Assistant Service Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 2013'). Briefly, the skeletal material facts are that the petitioner who was initially appointed as Vidhyarthi Mitra, in the month of October, 2003, continued up to May, 2013, and has claimed relaxation in the upper age limit of 35 years so as to fall within the age criteria of Rule 15(x) of the Rules of 2013, wherein the age criteria is 18 years and must not have attained the age of 35 years on the first day of January next following year for receipt of application forms.
(3.) I have considered the pleadings and grounds of the writ application and gave my thoughtful consideration to the reasons detailed out in the order dated 5th July, 2013 (Annexure -6), passed by respondent No. 2, while declining the relaxation in the outer age limit of 35 years to the petitioner.;