- (1.) HEARD on admission.
(2.) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of proviso added to Rule 265 by amendment of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 vide notification dated 21.06.2010. The impugned proviso reads as under : - " (x) If a candidate would have been entitled in respect of his/her age for direct recruitment in any year in which no such recruitment was held, he/she shall be deemed to be eligible in next following recruitment, if he/she is not over age by more than 3 years."
(3.) IT is not in dispute that an identical proviso was inserted to Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 vide notification of the Department of Personnel dated 23.9.2008 and it was matter of challenge before the coordinate Bench of this High Court in Prem Ratan Modi vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors, 2013 1 WLC(Raj) 39. The reasonings, given by the coordinate Bench while dismissing the case in paragraphs 20 to 24, are as under : - "20. The submission as made by the learned counsel for the appellant that limiting the age relaxation only upto 3 years operates contrary to the provisions of the Rules does not carry force. The aspects of yearly determination of vacancy and even yearly holding of recruitment do not ipso facto lead to the position that every person within the age limit as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or determination of vacancy ought to be treated within the age irrespective of the other provisions of the Rules and irrespective of the time of recruitment. 21. In the ultimate analysis, age relaxation for the direct recruitment, if to be granted, would be a matter for the Government to prescribe in the relevant Rules; and beyond what has been prescribed, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It appears that in order to mitigate against the hardship likely to be faced by the prospective candidates but at the same time maintaining the balance of the requirements of services, the Government has provided age relaxation upto 3 years by way of notifications of amendment as issued on 23.09.2008. Taking for example the recruitment in question, the maximum age limit as prescribed in the Rules is 35 years and it gets extended to 38 years with the relaxation provided. If at all the factor of not holding of recruitment for 13 years is taken into consideration and the relaxation for all the years of not holding recruitment is provided as suggested, it would be something like allowing a person even at about 48 years of age to enter into the service as an LDC. The Government, in its wisdom, if has chosen to restrict the relaxation to 3 years beyond the age as prescribed, it cannot be said that anything unreasonable or irrational has been provided. 22. We need not dilate further on the aforesaid aspect in the present case as the validity of Rules was not in challenge in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. In the existing scheme of Rules, the petitioner was not entitled to the relief as claimed; and hence, the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted in dismissing the writ petition. 23. So far the other submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding relaxation in case of hardship per Rule 49 of the Rules of 1999 is concerned, such an aspect does not appear having been placed for consideration before the learned Single Judge. However, in the interest of justice, it does appear appropriate to observe in this regard that if at all the petitioner -appellant makes, within two weeks from today, specific representation for consideration of his case on the anvil of Rule 49 and other co -related rules applicable to the case for relaxation in regard to the age, the same may be considered by the respondents in accordance with law; and for that matter, any observations made in this order shall not be of an impediment in independent and objective consideration of such representation. 24. Subject to the observations and the requirements foregoing, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs." We have examined the judgment in Prem Ratan Modi vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. , and did not find any such ground, which may require reconsideration by the Court of the judgment, or any such ground has been raised, which may require a reference to a Larger Bench.;