S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1450/2009 Manoher Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : 10.02.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka for petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Zakawat Ali, Dy. Government Counsel is directed to accept the notice. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy of overage for the post of Prabodhak is squarely covered by the judgment of Para No. 19 and 35 of this Court dated 07.01.2009 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5951/2008 and other connected writ petitions titled as Smt. Priti Dixit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. He further submits that at the time of initial appointment, the petitioner was within age limit, as his date of appointment is referred in experience Certificate. Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the aforesaid judgment. I have considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter. The para No. 19 and 35 of judgment titled as Smt. Priti Dixit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. are as under :- “19. Rule 13(v) of the Rajasthan Panchayagti Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 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 day of January following the last date fixed for receipt of applications: (i)----------- --- ---- (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 the age limit, had they been within the age limit when they were initially engaged even though they may have crossed the age limit at the time of direct recruitment. 35.During pendency of litigation if the petitioners became overage, they are entitled to get age relaxation and be considered within age limit if they were within age limit as per the advertisement dated 31.05.2008 at the time of their initial appointment. Such petitioners are entitled for appointment on the post of Prabodhak considering them within age limit and the respondents have also powers to relax the rules under Rule 40 of the Rules of 2008, as held by this Court in the case of Manish Thakur Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Anr. Reported in 2004(1) WLC (Raj.) 260. I am also of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be treated in the age limit, in case the petitioner was within age limit at the time of initial appointment. The petitioner shall not be denied appointment on the ground of overage. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (PREM SHANKER ASOPA),J. Gandhi 2