K.S.JHAVERI,J. - (1.) In this petition, the petitioners have approached this Court, praying for the following relief(s): "By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to amend/alter/modify the advertisement issued by the respondent by incorporating the relaxation clause available to the members of the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Services", to declare rule 10 of Rajasthan Education Service Rules of 1970 to be ultra vires as it discriminate between persons on equal footing and further the respondents be directed give the benefit of relaxation of age to the petitioners and treat them within age for the post of Lecturer School Education in respect of Advertisement dated 16.10.2015; 2. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to make the rules considering the grounds taken in the petition and uniformly apply the age for a class (persons having qualification as graduation) (persons having qualification as post graduation) and (persons having qualification as graduation, post graduation and B.ED) (persons working acting in substantive capacity as teachers in Elementary/Secondary Education in service rules of all the departments of the State; 3. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble court deem just and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioners."
(2.) We have heard Mr. Mahendra Singh.
(3.) The main contention of all the petitioners is regarding age relaxation. Parties are in agreement that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Vijay Pal Yadav v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., DB Civil Writ No. 15161/2016 and other connected matters decided on 08.12.2016. The order dated 08.12.2016 reads as under: 4. The contention which has been raised by petitioners is with regard relaxation in age as provided under Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1971 which is reproduced as under: "A candidate for direct recruitment to a post enumerated in the [Schedules] must have attained the age of 24 year and must have attained the age mentioned in column 7 of the [Schedules] against each post on the first day of July next following the last date fixed for receipt of application: Provided- [(I) that the upper age limit mentioned in column 7 of the [Schedules] shall be relaxed by 5 years in the case of women candidates, candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and the Government Servant of Rajasthan for all categories of posts mentioned in the [Schedules]. In case of members of Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service the relaxation shall be 15 years for the posts mentioned in item 1 of Groups F of the Schedule.] (ii) that the upper age limit mentioned in column 7 of the [Schedules] shall be apply in case of an ex-prisoner who had served under the Govt. on a substantive basis on any post before his conviction and was eligible for appointment under the rules. (iii) that the upper age limit mentioned in column 7 of the [Schedules] shall be relaxed by a period equal to the term of imprisonment served in the case of an ex-prisoner who was overage before his conviction and was eligible for appointment under the rules; (iv) that the upper age limit mentioned in column 7 of the [Schedules] shall be relaxed by a period equal to the service rendered in the National Cader Corps in the case of Cadet Instructors if the resultant age does exceed the prescribed maximum age limit by more than three years such candidate shall be deemed to be within the prescribed age limit; (v) that the persons appointed temporarily [to a post in the service] shall be deemed to be within the age limit if they were within the age limit when they were initially appointed even though they have crossed the age limit when they appear finally before the Commission and shall be allowed upto two chances had they been eligible as such at the time of their initial appointment; [(vi) notwithstanding anything contained contrary in these rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State in substantive capacity, the upper age-limit shall be 40 years for direct filled in through the Commission. This relaxation shall apply to urgent temporary appointment] [(vii) that the Released Emergency Commission Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers after release from the Army shall be deemed to be within the age-limit when they appear before the Commission had they been eligible as such at the time of their joining the Commission in the Army.] [(viii) that there shall be no age limit in the case of widow and divorce women. Explanation:- That in the case of widow, she will have to furnish a certificate of death of her husband from the competent Authority and in the case of divorce she will have to furnish the proof of divorce]. [(ix) that where the upper age limit the post/posts is prescribed as 33 years or less in the rules or schedule, as the case may be, it shall be relaxed by 2 years in the case of candidates belonging to the other Backward classes.] 5. He contended that fixing of 01.07.2016 as the relevant date is arbitrary and contrary to the objects which are sought to be achieved. The posts are required to be filled on or before 31st March of the relevant year, when the new session begins. According to him the cutoff dated ought to have been fixed as 1st April of the relevant year. Fixing of date as 1st July, 2016 is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Contitution of India. 6. Dr. Saugath Roy has contended that Rule 10 provides for relaxation in age which has been given to Headmasters and in other case five years relaxation for the same post which is discriminatory. He therefore, argued that the relaxation of 15 years which has been sought to be given to others, should also be given to the OBC candidates. 7. Mr. Vigyan Shah appearing for the other petitioners contended that for school teachers relaxation in age has been provided for five years and the relaxation of age for the college teacher or Headmasters is for 15 years, and therefore, there is discrimination. 8. We have heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the respondents. 9. Counsel for the respondents has mainly relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in case of D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India (1983)1 SCC 305 to contend that the decision of the authority with regard to the post and cadre experience, the authority has decided the qualification and age relaxation in an academic field. When the age relaxation and qualifications is decided, it will be appropriate for us to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Contitution of India. The relaxation which is sought to be made and prayer made for issuing mandamus for amending or modifying the rule of qualification under Article 311 of the Contitution of India is misconceived. 10. In our opinion it will be appropriate to interfere with the policy decision of the State Government by way of the statutory rules, framed under Article 311 of the Contitution of India. The authority has fixed the cutoff dated and age relaxation, wherein in view of the judgment of D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India (supra) cannot be examined by this Court. We do feel that the impugned provisions are arbitrary. The same is fixed according to the policy of the State Government, and it is equally applicable and consistent for all the posts of the Education Department. The relaxation of age for the Principal or Headmaster or advance Professor in the college is justified as the State may require experienced persons and for that, if the relaxation of age of 15 years is granted it is justified. In our view the same is permissible and it is a policy matter. 11. The writ petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. 12. Stay application stands dismissed.;