Jaishree Thakur, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Notification dated 25.1.2010 by which there is an amendment made to the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Qualification and Conditions of Service of Chairman and Members of the Board) Rules, 1971.
(2.) THE petitioner is an advocate by profession and was enrolled with the Bar Council of Rajasthan in the year 1982. He practiced at Sri Ganganagar in the District & Sessions Court as also in the Revenue Courts and in 1996, he shifted his practice to Ajmer as an Advocate appearing before the Board of Revenue. The respondent State issued a notice inviting applications from eligible Advocates for filling up vacancies of Members of the Board of Revenue under the Rules of 1971. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted his application along with supporting documents. However, as per the amended Rules, the petitioner was not qualified to be selected for the said post since he had not attained the age of 54 years. Aggrieved against this, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition challenging the amendment made to the Rules of 1971 wherein the minimum age of 50 years as provided under the Rules of 1971 has been amended by the impugned Notification dated 25.1.2010 to read as 54 years. It is contended by Mr. Abhinav Jain, counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Notification dated 25.1.2010 in relation to the appointments from the category of Advocates is illegal and ultra vires and deprives him of an opportunity to apply for the said post. It is argued that there is no rationale behind increasing the age requirement from 50 years to 54 years as originally the rule prescribed that any person who is eligible to become a Judge of the High Court was also eligible to become a Member of the Board of Revenue. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Council Of Legal Aid & v. Bar Council of India & Anr. : AIR 1995 SC 691, in which the rule debarring the person who have completed 45 years of age of entering into the profession was struck down by the Apex Court.
(3.) THE State has filed its reply and the stand taken therein is that "it is a prerogative of the State to amend the relevant provisions and the State Government is fully competent to take a policy decision in such matters and make just and necessary amendments." It is also argued that the amendment to the rule vide Notification dated 25.1.2010 is legal and valid and has been made in order to attract more experienced person into the Board.;