Jaishree Thakur, J. - (1.) BY this judgment, we propose to dispose of a batch of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the Constitutional validity of Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Vidhyalay Sahayak Subordinate Service Rules, 2015, to the extent that the said rule denies weightage of experience gained by persons while working in different projects of the Government of Rajasthan on account of "being employed through placement agencies".
(2.) THE Government of Rajasthan in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, notified Rules called as Rajasthan Vidhyalay Sahayak Subordinate Service Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2015') in which recruitment was to be made to the post of Vidhyalay Sahayak. The method of recruitment was 100% by direct recruitment. As per Schedule I of the said Rules, the minimum educational qualification and experience required for recruitment was specified as Senior Secondary (10+2) from a recognised Board or its equivalent along with minimum one year's experience of academic/non academic work in State Government School/State Recognized Non -Government School/State Government Educational Project (other than those engaged through placement agency), viz. Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/District Primary Education Programme/Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala/Shikshakarmi Board and Madrasa listed under the Madrasa Board. The term 'Experience' has been defined under section 2(j) of the Rules of 2015, which reads as under: - "2(j) "Experience" wherever prescribed in these rules means the experience gained by Academic/Non -Academic work in State Government School/State Recognized Non -Government School/State Government Educational Project (other than those engaged through placement agency) viz. Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/District Primary Education Programme/Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala/Shikshakarmi Board and Madrasa listed under the Madrasa Board." The scheme of selection is laid down in Rule 25: "25. Scheme of Selection. - (1) The Committee shall award marks to the candidates, whose names included in the list prepared under rule 24, on the basis of such weightage as may be specified by the State Government for the marks obtained in qualifying examination mentioned in the Schedule -1 and such marks as may be specified by the State having regard to experience of working in the State Government, State Government Educational Projects (other than those engaged through placement agency) viz. Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/District Primary Education Programme/Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala/Shiksha Karmi Board and Madarsa listed under the Madarsa Board. After awarding marks, the Committee shall arrange the list in order of merit and five times candidates of the total number of vacancies category wise and district wise to be filled in, shall be called for interview. Explanation: Wherever percentage of the marks cannot be ascertained due to grade awarded to the candidate in the particular examination, the median of the grade awarded to the candidate in such examination shall be basis for the preparation of merit list. (2) The interview shall carry such marks as may be determined by the State Government. The Committee shall award marks to each candidate interviewed by it. The marks, so awarded in interview, shall be added to the marks awarded to the candidate under sub -rule (1) above, for the qualifying examination and working experience. The Committee shall prepare final merit list on the basis of aggregate marks awarded to each candidate." Pursuant to the notification of the Rules of 2015, an advertisement was issued on 21.7.2015 inviting online applications for the post of Vidhyalay Sahayak. As the petitioners were possessing educational qualifications as required and had also gained experience while working in Government School/State Recognized Non -Government School/State Government Educational Project in different capacities, being appointed through placement agencies, have challenged Rule 25 of the Rules of 2015 since the said rule excludes giving of weightage of experience for working in the State Government, State Government Educational Projects to those engaged through placement agency. The grievance is also to the definition "Experience" in section 2(j) of the Rules of 2015 which excludes those persons who have the necessary experience gained in working in Government Projects/Schools but had been recruited through placement agencies.
(3.) MR . M.S. Godara and Dr. Nupur Bhati, learned Counsels for the petitioners have contended that the petitioners have been deprived of getting the benefit of experience gained by them on account of being engaged through placement agencies. Rule 25 of the Rules of 2015 pertains to the process of selection wherein a Committee shall award marks to the candidates on the basis of such weightage as may be specified by the State Government for marks obtained in qualifying examination mentioned in the Schedule -I and such marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to experience of working in the State Government School/State Government Educational Project other than those engaged through placement agencies (emphasis supplied). It is argued that in case the Rule 25 is allowed to stand, the petitioners who have been appointed on various Government projects through placement agencies would be denied the weightage given for the experience gained while working on these projects. Relying upon the judgment reported as Mitendra Singh Rathore vs. State of Rajasthan & ors., : 2013(4) WLC (Raj.) 523, the counsel for the petitioners contend that this Court has already gone into this issue wherein it had been held: - "The object of granting weightage to the experienced hands is to have meritorious persons with insight, skill and knowledge of the job and that in no manner shall have adverse effect on giving weightage to the persons who acquired experience on being employed through placement agencies. The classification sought to be made under Proviso Second to Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996 on the basis of mode of employment or to say by denying weightage to the persons employed on posts of Junior Technical Assistant (J.T.A.), Junior Engineer, Gram Rozglar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Co -ordinate IEC, Coordinator Training and Coordinator Supervision through placement agencies in MGNREGA or any other scheme of Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, as a matter of fact, is having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by granting weightage in the form of bonus marks to the experienced hands, therefore, the classification made under Proviso Second to Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996 on the basis of the mode of employment, is having no rational, hence, is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.";