1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Smt. Santosh Kalla Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8817/2008 Date of Order : : 16/02/2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr.Kuldeep Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr.Govind Suthar on behalf of Mr. R.L.Jangid, Addl.Advocate General for the respondents. BY THE COURT: By an application being I.A. No.1998/09, the petitioner seeks early hearing of the writ petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the application is allowed. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself has been heard and decided finally. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the 2 respondents to allow her to join on the post of Prabodak in pursuance of the appointment order dated 29.9.2008 Annex.6 if she is otherwise eligible, in accordance with the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 (for short “the Rules of 2008” hereinafter) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as Para Teacher in Government Upper Primary School, Judh, Panchayat Samiti Osiyan, District Jodhpur. Since her appointment on 05.07.2002, the petitioner has been working on the said post. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the date of birth of the petitioner is 03.04.1967, as such, at the time of appointment, the petitioner was within the age limit. The certificate issued by the Senior Deputy District Education Officer Cum Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Osiyan has been placed on record as Annexure-1. The Rules of 2008 came to be promulgated in exercise of power under Section 89 read with Section 102 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short “the Act of 1994”) prescribing the condition for the appointment on the post of Prabodhak. According to the petitioner, the Rule 13 (v) of the Rules of 2008 provides that a candidate should be within the age limit at the time of his initial appointment in educational project in the State viz. Rajiv Gandhi 3 Pathsala/Shiksha Karmi Board/Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/District Primary Education Programme and for the appointment on the post of Prabodhak, the age of the candidate is to be taken the age as on the date of his initial engagement and if a candidate is found within the age limit on the date of his initial engagement, then he will be considered to be within the age limit for the purpose of appointment on the post of Prabodhak. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 13 provides that a candidate for direct recruitment to a post enumerated in the Schedule must have attained the age of 23 years and must not have attained the age of 35 years on the first day of January following the last date fixed for receipt of application and Rule 13 (ii) further provides that the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by five years in case of women candidates belonging to General Category. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for the post of Prabodhak and was called for interview. she faced interview and was selected and her name finds place in the select list at serial No. 208 against General Category and has been offered appointment vide order dated 29.9.2008 Annex.6, however, she has not been allowed to join on the post only on the ground of age verification, whereas the petitioner was within the age limit prescribed for appointment on the post of Prabodhak. 4 The respondent-State came with a case that the petitioner on the relevant date was overage and therefore, she has not been allowed to join. However, as to whether the age of the petitioner has been considered in the light of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 or not, is not clear from the stand of the State. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner faced the interview and according to the petitioner, she stands in merit and has been offered appointment vide appointment order dated 29.9.2008 Annex.6 but has not been permitted to join on the post of Prabodhak on the ground of age verification, in my view, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to examine the case of petitioner individually with reference to her eligibility including age limit and if she is found to be within age limit as prescribed under Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 and otherwise fulfills the eligibility criteria as provided under the Rules of 2008 and is a meritorious then her case may be considered according to her merit and pass an appropriate order. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. rp 5 S.B.CIVIL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO. 15224/2008 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8817/2008 Date of order : : 16/02/2009 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr.Kuldeep Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr.R.L.Jangid, Addl.Advocate General for the respondents. Since the writ petition itself has been disposed of, the stay petition also stands disposed of. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp