1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Ram Niwas Karesia Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9041/2008 Date of Order : : 29/01/2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr.Kuldeep Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr.R.L.Jangid, Addl.Advocate General 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 candidature for the appointment on the post of Prabodhak and grant appointment on the said post, if he 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 2 that the petitioner is a member of Other Backward Class (for short “the OBC” hereinafter) and he was working as Para Teacher in Government Primary School, Purvi, Kumharo Ki Dhani, Nevra Road, Panchayat Samiti Osiyan, District Jodhpur. Since his appointment on 4.7.2002, the petitioner has been working on the said post. The date of birth of the petitioner is 15.5.1968 as averred in the writ petition. As such, at the time of appointment, the petitioner was within age limit. The certificate issued by the District Education Officer (Elementary), Jodhpur 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 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 3 post of Prabodhak. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for the post of Prabodhak and was called for interview. He faced interview and was selected and his name finds place in merit at Serial No. 209 but he has not been considered only on the ground of age verification. The respondent-State came with a case that the petitioner on the relevant date was overage and therefore, he could not be considered, however, as to whether the age of the petitioner has been considered in the light of Rule 13(v) of the Rules of 2008 or not, is not clear from the stand of the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a number of writ petitions came to be filed before the Jaipur Bench of this Court being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5951/2008; Smt.Priti Dixit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and 1066 connected writ petitions, which came to be decided vide order dated 7.1.2009 wherein coordinate Bench of this Court, in para 42 of the order, observed as under:- “Few of the petitioners have approached this Court with the grievance that they have been selected on the post of Prabodhak but the respondents are not allowing them to join their duties. In this regard, the respondents are directed to consider and examine the case of such petitioners and if they are otherwise found eligible, they be allowed to join 4 duties as per the select list.” Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner faced the interview and according to the petitioner, he stands in merit but has been denied consideration for appointment 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 his eligibility including age limit and if he otherwise fulfills the eligibility criteria as provided under the Rules of 2008 and is a meritorious then his case may be considered according to his merit and pass an appropriate order regarding appointment within 15 days from producing the certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. NK 5 S.B.CIVIL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO. 15579/2008 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9041/2008 Date of order : : 29/01/2009 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. NK