1 SBCW NO. 5932/08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5932/2008 Jagdish Rai Kasniya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order : : 06.04.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. C.S.Kotwani, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhati on behalf of Mr. R.L.Jangid, Addl. Advocate General for respondents. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his candidature for appointment on the post of Prabodhak in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 31.5.08 and declare him within age limit as provided under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 (for short 'the Rules of 2008' hereinafter). Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Sahayogi in the year 1999 on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. For the purpose of appointment on the post of Shiksha Sahayogi, Para Teachers etc. the age prescribed was 2 SBCW NO. 5932/08 that a candidate should have completed 18 years of age and there was no outer limit regarding the age. However, after coming into force of Rules of 2008, the petitioner applied for the post of Prabodhak and has been denied appointment on the ground that he has crossed the age prescribed under Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since for appointment on the post of Shiksha Sahayogi, Para Teachers etc. there was no outer limit for age prescribed and therefore, for appointment on the post of Prabodhak, the age prescribed under Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 cannot be made applicable and proviso (v) to Rule 13 may be applied considering the petitioner to be within age limit when he was initially appointed as Shiksha Sahayogi. Mr. Rajesh Bhati appearing on behalf of Mr. R.L.Jangid, Additional Advocate General for the respondents submits that Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 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 applications and admittedly the petitioner was more than 35 years of age on the first day of January following the last date fixed for receipt of applications. This fact has not been disputed. In the affidavit filed 3 SBCW NO. 5932/08 by the petitioner along with the writ petition, the petitioner has shown himself to be of 49 years of age and he was appointed in the year 1999, the date of birth of the petitioner is 03.03.1959 and therefore, at the time of initial engagement i.e. on 26.6.1999, the age of the petitioner was about 41 years and thus admittedly on the first day of January following the last date fixed for receipt of application, the age of the petitioner was more than 35 years of age. Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 deals with the eventualities with regard to the age which reads as under:- “13. Age:- 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 date of January following the last date fixed for receipt of applications: Provided- (i) that the upper age limit mentioned above, shall be relaxed by 5 years in the case of male candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes. (ii) that the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by 5 years in case of women candidates belonging to General Category. (iii) that the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by 10 years in the case of woman candidates belonging to the Scheduled 4 SBCW NO. 5932/08 Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. (iv) that the upper age limit mentioned above shall be 50 years in the case of Ex-service Personnel and the reservists, namely the defense Service Personnel who were transferred to the reserve. (v) that the person serving under the educational project in the State viz. Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala/ Shiksha Karmi Board/ Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/ Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/ District Primary Education Programme shall be deemed to be within age limit, had they been within age limit when they were initially engaged even though they may have crossed the age limit at the time of direct recruitment. (vi) that the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by a period equal to the service rendered in the NCC in the case of Cadet instructors and if the resultant age does not exceed the prescribed maximum age limit by more than three years, they shall be deemed to be within the prescribed age limit. (vii) that the Released Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers after release from the Army shall be deemed to be within the age limit even though they have crossed the age limit when they appear before the Committee had they been eligible as such at the time of their joining the Commission in the Army. 5 SBCW NO. 5932/08 (viii) that there shall be no upper age limit in the case of widows and divorced women.” Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 in clear terms provided that the person serving under the educational project in the State viz. Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala/ Shiksha Karmi Board/ Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/ Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/ District Primary Education Programme shall be deemed to be within age limit, had they been within age limit when they were initially engaged even though they may have crossed the age limit at the time of direct recruitment. Thus, this deeming provision provides that candidates who were serving under the aforesaid educational projects had been within the age limit provided under Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 i.e. must have attained 23 years of age 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, it cannot be said that for the purpose of appointment on the post of Para-teacher, Shiksha Sahayogi etc. there was no outer limit and therefore, for these persons there can be no limitation of the age. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and it is therefore, dismissed. Stay petition also stand dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. rp