1 SBCW NO. 5483/08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Lehru Lal Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5483/2008 ......... Date of Order : 15.10.2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Sandeep Shah for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhati for Mr. R.L.Jangid, AAG for the respondents. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his case for appointment on the post of Prabodhak in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.5.2008 issued by the respondents and declare that the petitioner was within age limit for consideration of his candidature for appointment on the post of Prabodhak in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.5.2008. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially engaged on the post of Instructor under the Panchayati Samiti, Chittorgarh by order dated 20.5.91 and he discharged the duties on the post of Instructor till 31.3.2001. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been discharging the duties of para-teacher since 01.7.99. The petitioner applied for the post of Prabodhak under 2 SBCW NO. 5483/08 the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 (for short 'the Rules of 2008' hereinafter). According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was possessing five years continuous teaching experience without any break in the recognized educational institution/ educational project, however, he has been denied consideration on the ground that on the relevant date i.e. last date for submission of application, the petitioner has already crossed the age as provided under Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court in Amar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 6118/08 decided on 20.2.2009. In that case, the date of birth of the petitioner therein was 13.2.1966 i.e. on the date of joining as Shiksha Sahyogi on 03.7.2002, his age was 35 years 07 months. The Proviso to Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 provides that upper age limit mentioned in Rule 13 shall be relaxed by five years in case of male candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC. Proviso (v) to Rule 13 further provides 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 the age limit when they were initially engaged even though they may have crossed the age limit at the time of direct recruitment. In that case, the petitioner therein was member of Other Backward Class and therefore, entitled for five years relaxation and as such on the last date of filing of application, his age could have been 35+5=40 years and he was less than 40 years of age. 3 SBCW NO. 5483/08 Considering the provisions of Rule 13 (v) and the proviso thereto providing the relaxation of age, the petitioner therein was held to be within age limit. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that programme of non-formal/informal education was also conducted by the State Govt. and the educational institution/ project enumerated in Section 13 is not exhaustive. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was neither engaged in Rajeev Gandhi Swarn Jayanti Pathshala/ Siksha Karmi Board/ Lok Jumbish Pariyojna/ sarva Siksha Abhiyan/ District Primary Education Programme nor the educational institution run by State Govt. On the contrary, the petitioner was engaged in non-formal/informal education and he was not on full time appointment and according to learned counsel for the respondent, the scheme of non-formal/ informal education is to motivate and teach such students wherever they are found even either at Panchayat or at any other places in villages and motivate them for education particularly children between 6 to 14 years of age and therefore, the case of the petitioner does not fall in the categories provided under Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on a decision of this Court in Sumer Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3899/08 decided on 08.08.08 wherein the petitioner therein was at the ripe age of 48 years and sought relaxation in maximum age limit for the purpose of consideration for appointment to the post of Prabodhak under Rule 13 (v) of the Rules of 2008. This Court held that the petitioner is in the ripe age of 48 years and therefore, now grant of age relaxation while making appointment 4 SBCW NO. 5483/08 to the post of Prabodhak shall not at all be in public interest and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner therein. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and another Vs. Monirujjaman Mullick and others, AIR 1996 SC 3466, wherein the doctrine of equal pay for equal work came to be examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In that case, the State Government implemented a scheme for imparting non-formal education to the children in the age group of 9/11 years who were either school drop-outs or did not go to school. The scheme provided for the opening of non-formal education centres (Part time) by the State Government with the help of Central Government grant. The non-formal centres were part-time institutions. The instructors were given a fixed honorarium of Rs.105/- per month at the primary level and Rs. 125/- per month at the upper primary level. Persons with a motivation to serve the community particularly weaker sections were appointed instructors. They were required to teach the children for two hours a day. The centres were run by the Panchayat Samities in rural areas and by the Municipal Committees/ Corporations in urban areas. There were no specific buildings or sites for the centres. The instructors could use any site or building belonging to a social organisation or a local authority. On these premises, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- “The non-formal educational centres cannot be equated with the primary schools which are regularly run by the Educational Department of the State Government. Apart from the basic qualitative differences between the two institutions even the nature of work of the non-formal instructors and the primary school teachers is not identical. The method 5 SBCW NO. 5483/08 of appointment, the source of recruitment, method of teaching, hours of teaching and the mode of payment are entirely different. Thus, the instructors appointed under the scheme could not claim same scales of pay and allowances as are admissible and paid to regular primary school teachers of Education Department of the State Government. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work could not be invoked.” In the instant case, indisputably the petitioner was initially engaged for imparting non-formal/informal education and this fact has not been disputed. Even it is the case of the petitioner himself that he was initially engaged for non- formal/informal education scheme as instructor. On the date of filing of the writ petition on 6.8.08, the petitioner has already attained the age of 50 years as mentioned in the writ petition. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the case of the petitioner does not fall in the age relaxation as provided in Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008. As the petitioner was neither engaged by the State Govt. in Rajeev Gandhi Swarn Jayanti Pathshala/ Siksha Karmi Board/ Lok Jumbish Pariyojna/ sarva Siksha Abhiyan/ District Primary Education Programme and therefore, the relaxation provided under Rule 13 (v) of the Rules of 2008 and proviso thereto has no application to the case of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the decision relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp 6 SBCW NO. 5483/08 S.B.Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 9841/08 In S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5483/08 Date of Order : 15/10/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR. Mr. Sandeep Shah for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhati for Mr. R.L.Jangid, AAG for the respondents. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp