[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR COMMON ORDER (1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9112/2008 BHOJA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8770/2008 ANIL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (3) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8771/2008 DEEP CHAND & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (4) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8792/2008 SATISH CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (5) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8985/2008 BABU LAL & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (6) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9050/2008 HARIMOHAN MEENA & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (7) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9265/2008 AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (8) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9282/2008 RAJARAM MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (9) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9288/2008 KARTAR SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (10) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9333/2008 PREMLAL BAIRWA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (11) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9488/2008 SABIR ALI HASHMI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (12) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9552/2008 DINESH CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (13) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9560/2008 AASHISH KUAMR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (14) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9562/2008 MUKESH SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (15) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9563/2008 INDRAJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (16) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9569/2008 MUSTAQ ALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. & (17) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9615/2008 SMT. VANDANA KAUSHIK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. [2] Date: 12/09/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Vinod Singhal, ) Mr. Prashant Kumar, ) Mr. Ram Pratap Saini, ) Mr. Vijay Pathak, ) Mr. Pratap Singh Sirohi, ) Mr. Girish Khandelwal, ) for the petitioners. Mr. Vijay Yadav, ) Mr. M.K. Kuldeep, ) Mr. Kaleem Ahmed Khan, ) Mr. Neeraj Joshi, ) Mr. Hanuman Choudhary ) Mr. Rajnish Gupta, Dy. Govt. Counsel for the State. **** Since all these writ petitions are similar in nature, therefore, the same have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2, the Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner has issued an advertisement dated 03.06.2008 published in Rajasthan Patrika inviting applications to fill up 20,060 posts of Prabodhak. The said vacancies are to be filled up District wise. 3. Pursuant to the above advertisement, all the petitioners applied for appointment on the post of Prabodhak in respective Districts but the application forms of the petitioners were not [3] accepted on the ground of overage. It is alleged that the respondents are not giving preference to Prarak, whereas they possessed requisite qualification and experience for the post of Prabodhak and prayed for relaxation in age. 4. Since the application forms of the petitioners were rejected on the ground of overage, therefore, after serving notice for demand of justice, the present writ petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners aggrieving and dissatisfying with the illegal, arbitrary discriminatory action of the respondents. 5. The above writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners on the ground that imposition of such condition for upper age limit and not giving relaxation in upper age limit and also not considering the candidature of Prarak who possessed the requisite qualification and experience is highly illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that SATAT SAKSHARTA PROGRAMME (NATIONAL INSTITUION OF OPEN SCHOOL) is equivalent to DPEP, SARAV SHIKSHA ABHIYAN and LOK JUMBISH and, therefore, the experience of teaching in National Institution of Open School should be counted for the [4] purpose of recruitment on the post of Prabodhak as the petitioners are also teaching illiterate persons including children and adults. 7. It is further contended that SATAT SAKSHARTA PROGRAMME is under the supervision of the District Collector itself District wise and, therefore, the qualification and the experience of teaching of the petitioner cannot be ignored and thus, non-inclusion of the experience of teaching in SATAT SAKSHARTA PROGRAMME is illegal and arbitrary. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners referred sub-Rule (k) of Rule 2 of the Rajasthan Prachayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 (for short 'the Rules of 2008') which reads as under:- “2. Definitions:- In these rules unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (k) “Teaching Experience” for the purpose of direct recruitment includes the experience gained in supervisory capacity in any recognized educational institution or project;” 9. He also referred sub-Rule (v) of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Prachayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008, which reads as under:- [5] “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.” 10. After referring the provisions of the Rules of 2008, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that teaching experience includes experience gained in supervisory capacity in any recognized educational institution or project, meaning thereby the State Government's project of SATAT SAKSHARTA PROGRAMME which is not included in Rule 13(v) of the Rules of 2008, the experience gained in such project should be considered as teaching experience. 11. He further submits that a bare perusal of Rule 13(v) of the Rules of 2008 reveals that the person serving under the educational project in the State like Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala/ Shiksha Karmi Board/ Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/ Sarva Shiksha [6] 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. 12. Therefore, considering the provisions of Rule 13(v) of the Rules of 2008, the SATAT SAKSHARTA PROGRAMME is also the project of the State and the same should also be included in sub-Rule (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 for the purpose of giving relaxation in upper age limit considering initial appointment in the project. 13. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are working in the project of SATAT SAKSHARTA PROGRAMME and are getting only Rs. 700/- per month as honorarium. 14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that as per the provisions of Rule 13(v) of the Rules of 2008, admittedly the SATAT SAKSHARTA PROGRAMME has not been included and thus, the petitioners cannot take advantage of relaxation in upper age limit. 15. He also referred the scheme of SATAT SAKSHARTA PROGRAMME published by the Rajasthan State Literacy Mission Tribunal and submits that the [7] petitioners are honorarily working in the said project and they are not having teaching experience. 16. As per the guidelines mentioned in the Rajasthan State Shiksha Kriyanvayan Dastavez, the petitioners are supposed to performed the duties in the following work fields:- “26 पखवाडों में आयोिजत िकये जाने योग् य सम् भािवत िवषय क्षेऽों की सूची इस ूकार है - - मिहला ः वाः थ् य - बाल पोषाहार - सीिमत पिरवार - टीकाकरण - ः वाः थ् य परीक्षण - ः वच् छ जल ूबन् धन, पानी से होने वाले रोग एवं िनदान - व् यिक् तगत ः वच् छता - माम पंचायत का अवलोकन एवं संबंिधत जानकारी - राशन की दकान ु - पशु िचिकत् सा - अल् प बचत-मिहला स¼िƮ योजना - डाक घर एवं संबंिधत जानकारी - पटवार घर एवं संबंिधत जानकारी - सामािजक कुरीितयां एवं अंधिवँ वास - िवƭुत-उपकरण उपभोग एवं रखरखाव - ूाथिमक िशक्षा का सावर्जिनकरण - िशक्षा कमȸ, लोक जुिम् बश, अनौपचािर क िशक्षा, िजला ूाथिमक िशक्षा पिरषद सरः वती योजना आिद की जानकारी - पुिलस व् यवः था एवं ूाथिमकी दजर् कराना - न् यायालय व कानून व् यवः था - क़िष-खाƭ, बीज, िसंचाई - उपभोक् ता अिधकार एवं कत् तर्व् य - बाल ौम - मानवािधकार - न् यूनतम मजदरीू - ूाथिमक ः वाः थ् य केन् ि की जानकारी - कानूनी सलाह - ः थानीय कुटीर उƭोग धन् धे - पयार्वरण - युवक मंडल - मिहला मंडल - पशु धन एवं संरक्षण - डेयरी िवकास - मुगȸ पालन - म हामािरयां [8] - बैंक - एडस - जनसख् ंया िशक्षा - टेलीफोन - टेलीिवजन एवं रेिडयो - अखबार एवं पऽ-पिऽकाएं - िवपणन मेले - अन् य कोई िवषय ः थानीय आवँ यकता के अनुरूप" 17. Further as per the Progress Report published by the State, as many as 6 activities of SATAT SAKSHARTA PROGRAMME have been mentioned which read as under:- "सतत िशक्षा कायर्बम की गितिविधयां सतत िशक्षा कायर्बम के मुख् य छ: आयाम है :- - ूोजेक् ट फॉर रेिजडयूल इिलटेटस ् (पी.आर.आई.) कायर्बम - आय अिभÁिƮ - समतुल् य िशक्षा कायर्बम - व् यिक् तगत िशक्षा कायर्बम - जीवन गुणवत् ता सुधार कायर्बम - भिवं यवतȸ योजना कायर्बम" 18. After referring the scheme of SATAT SAKSHARTA PROGRAMME framed by the State Government, learned counsel for the respondents further submits that it is the absolute domain of the Legislation to include or not to include the programme in sub-Rule (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 and as per the Rules and as per the duties discharged by the petitioners, they are not having teaching experience in view of the definition as defined in Rule 2(k) of the Rules of 2008. [9] 19. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent State and carefully gone through the provisions of the Rajasthan Prachayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 as also the project/scheme of SATAT SAKSHARTA PROGRAMME (National Institution of Open School). 20. I also minutely gone through the progress report published by the State Government in this regard and perused the documents annexed with the writ petitions. 21. I have carefully gone through sub-Rule (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 and as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the project/scheme of SATAT SAKSHARTA PROGRAMME is also launched by the State Government and, therefore, this project be included in sub-Rule (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008. 22. It is also contended that as the petitioners are imparting primary education and DPEP is also included in sub-Rule (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008, for the purpose of giving benefit of relaxation in upper age limit even at the time of applying for direct recruitment to the post of Prabodhak, all the petitioners crossed the age limit, but their age should be considered from the [10] initial date of engagement in the project. 23. Upon careful perusal of sub-Rule (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008, the educational project in the State have been mentioned in sub-Rule (v) itself, viz Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala/ Shiksha Karmi Board/ Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/ Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/ District Primary Education Programme and admittedly, the SATAT SAKSHARTA PROGRAMME is not covered under the District Primary Education Programme and it is the absolute domain of the Legislation to include the project and the person who are working/serving under the educational project as mentioned in sub-Rule (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008, can only take the advantage of relaxation in age even though they have crossed the age limit at the time of direct recruitment but they shall be deemed to be within age limit and their age should be considered from the date of their initial engagement. 24. The petitioners in other words are asking for relaxation in age. Rule 40 of the Rules of 2008 provides power to relax rules. Rule 40 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabhodhak Service Rules, 2008 reads as under:- “40. Power to relax rules:- In exceptional cases where the Appointing Authority is satisfied that operation of the [11] rules relating to age or regarding requirement of experience for recruitment causes undue hardship in any particular case or where the Appointing Authority is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to age or experience of any person, it may with the concurrence of the Government, by order dispense with or relax the relevant provisions of these rules to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner, provided that such relaxation shall not be less favorable than the provisions already contained in these rules: Provided that relaxation in the prescribed period of service or experience under this rule shall only be granted to the extent of 1/3 period of service or experience prescribed for promotion to any post before holding the meeting of the Department Promotion Committee.” 25. As per the provisions of Rule 40 of the Rules of 2008, for the purpose of age relaxation, the State Government is empowered to give age relaxation in exceptional cases and for that, the petitioners are always at liberty to represent before the State Government for taking the benefit of age relaxation as provided under Rule 40 of the Rules of 2008, but in any case as this project under which the petitioners are working, is not included in sub-Rule (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008, the petitioners cannot take advantage of the said rules. [12] 26. A co-ordinate Bench of Jodhpur High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition NO. 6109/2008- Jaipal Bishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., along with several other similar writ petitions, vide judgment dated 02.09.2008 has thoroughly considered the provisions of Rules 2(k) and 13 of the Rules of 2008 and has observed as under:- “With the finding above, the rational for extending age relaxation to the persons serving in educational projects requires consideration. The Prabodhaks appointed under the Rules of 2008 have to work in rural areas where the requirement is not only the teaching, but motivation for education also. A person having experience of working with educational projects operating in rural areas shall be certainly useful in achieving the object of teaching as well as of motivation. It is also pertinent to note that in all educational projects the natives of the village under operation of the project were engaged as para teachers or teaching/education assistance. These persons, therefore, are having an essential essence of rural society, as such they are certainly in better position to educate and motivate rural masses. It is also relevant to be noticed that the teachers working with the recognised institutions are having status as their service is regulated by the Rajasthan Non- Government educational Institutions Act, 1989 and the Rules framed thereunder, whereas the persons serving with the educational projects, may that be from last number of years are not having any statutory protection of service. They are getting consolidated [13] honorarium and their service is coterminus to the project, therefore, if a welfare government has taken a step to cover those persons within the ambit of protection of statute by offering an opportunity to get themselves employed as Prabodhaks, then the same is not irrational but rather a need of time. Pertinent to note here that under the Rules of 2008 only a relaxation of maximum age limit is granted and no compromise is made with merit while making recruitment of the Prabodhaks. The persons serving educational projects are also required to face the process of selection necessary for recruitment as Prabodhak. It is settled by catina of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court that Article 14 of the Constitution of India protects even a discriminatory law as a good law, if it is based on “reasonable” or “permissible” classification and the reasonability and permissibility can be measured with the scale that (1) if the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons who are grouped together from others left out of the group; and (2)the differentia have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law in question. The classification may be founded on various factors. The necessity is that there must be nexus between the classification and the object of law in question. The legislature may adopt a factor constituting dissimilarity, but if that bears a reasonable relation to the social object of law, there will be no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the instant matters the classification as pointed out is reasonable for the reasons give above and there is nothing to show that the relaxation in maximum age limit granted to the persons serving with the educational projects such as Rajiv Gandhi Swarna Jayanti Pathshala, [14] Shiksha Karmi Project, Lok Jumbish Project, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and District Primary Education Programme is without reason, thus, there is no unequal treatment. The petitions for writ, in the circumstances fail and, therefore are dismissed.” 27. As regards experience and age relaxation, a co-ordinate Bench of Jodhpur High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3902/2008- Smt. Tripti Shrimali Vs. State & Others, vide order dated 04.08.2008, has observed as under:- “The candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment to the post of Prabodhak has not been considered being lacking the required statutory experience i.e. of five years. Admittedly, as per the Certificate Annexure 1 dated 15.04.2006, the petitioner worked with St. Austin's Secondary School from 09.07.2001 to 10.03.2006 as a Teacher. The petitioner, therefore, does not have the required experience. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that a relaxation could have been granted by the appointing authority as per Rule 40 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008. Whether such relaxation is desirable in the case of the petitioner is to be decided by the appointing authority as per the Rules and not by this Court. As such, the petition for writ is having no merit, same, therefore, is dismissed.” 28. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners as well as on behalf of respondent State and after carefully going [15] through the judgments passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Jodhpur High Court as also the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayatai Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008, since the project under which the petitioners are working, is not included in sub-Rule (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008, the petitioners cannot be given benefit under the aforesaid provisions and the relaxation can only be granted by the Appointing Authority as per Rule 40 of the Rules of 2008. Whether such relaxation is desirable in the case of the petitioners, is to be decided by the Appointing Authority as per the Rules and not by this Court. As such, all the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 29. In the result, all these 17 writ petitions fail being devoid of merit and the same are hereby dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/