S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1974/2009 Dayawanti Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of order : 20.02.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma for petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 07.01.2009 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5951/2008 and other connected cases titled as Preeti Dixit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. wherein in para No. 18, the identical case dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of Jodhpur vide its judgment dated 12.09.2008 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 9112/2008- Bhoja Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. alongwith 16 other writ petitions was considered in Bhoja Ram case and all the 17 writ petitions have been dismissed considering the fact that on the date of initial appointment as Teacher they were not within the age limit, therefore, there cases is not included in sub-Rule (V) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008, relaxation can only be granted by the appointing authority as per Rule 40 of the Rules of 2008. Whether such relaxation is desirable in the case of the petitioners, is to be decided by the appointing authority as per the Rules and not by this Court. The Para 18 of the judgment of Preeti Dixit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. is as follows :- “The similar controversy, as involved in this writ petition, has already been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 12.09.2008 rendered in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 9112/2008- Bhoja Ram Vs.State of Rajasthan & Ors., alongwith 16 other writ petitions, wherein this Court has observed as under :- “28. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners as well as on behalf of respondent State and after carefully going through the judgments passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Jodhpur High Court as also the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008, since the project under which the petitioners are working, is not included in sub-Rule (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008, the petitioners cannot be given benefit under the aforesaid provisions and the relaxation can only be granted by the Appointing Authority as per Rule 40 of the Rules of 2008. Whether such relaxation is desirable in the case of the petitioners, is to be decided by the Appointing Authority as per the Rules and not by this Court. As such, all the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 29. In the result, all these 17 writ petitions fail being devoid of merit and the same are hereby dismissed.” In view of the above, the writ petition fails and dismissed being devoid of merit. (PREM SHANKER ASOPA),J. Gandhi 6