1 S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4630/2007 (VIMLA SHARMA V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS). DATE OF ORDER :::: 03/03/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr. R.S.Saluja, for Petitioner (s). Mrs. R.R.Kanwar, Addl. G.A., for Respondents. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that her candidature be considered by treating her to be within age limit for the post of Supervisor. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was initially appointed as Aanganwadi Karyakarta pursuant to the order of appointment dated 06.10.1995. Her services on the aforesaid post remained satisfactory, hence as per provisions of the Rajasthan Woman and Child Development (State & Subordinate) Service Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 199m8'), 20% of the posts of Supervisor are required to be filled from and amongst Aanganwadi Karyakarta. A Notification for filling up the post of Supervisor was then issued in the year, 2004. As 2 per the Notification, requisite age was 45 years, besides ten years' of experience. According to the petitioner, she was lacking in the experience, inasmuch as , by 2004, she had not completed ten years of experience. However, when the process was again being conducted in the year, 2006, the petitioner gained required experience and, therefore, respondents issued call letter, for interview, to be commenced from 15th June, 2007 onwards. The petitioner's candidature was not considered on the ground that she is over age, thus not eligible for appointment on the post of Supervisor. The petitioner then submitted representation for grant of age relaxation, but, then the said representation was not considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that necessary representations, so submitted, could not be placed on record, due to bona fide reasons, though a forwarding letter Annexure 5 has been placed on record. According to him, as per Rule 14 of the Rules of 1998, when 20% posts of Supervisor are to be filled from Aanganwadi Karyakarta, then looking to the experience of the petitioner in her working, the Government should have considered her 3 case for grant of relaxation in age. Thus, prayer of the petitioner is to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner in view of the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1998. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner, being over-age, she was rightly denied right of consideration, inasmuch as, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anand Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan already held that on the date of selection, if any candidate is age-barred, then merely for the reason that for a long time, selections have not been conducted, the candidate cannot be treated within the age by relating it back to the date of vacancy. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, thus, the writ petition merits no consideration. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The grievance which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is quite narrow, inasmuch as, the 4 candidature of the petitioner is required to be considered in the light of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1998. It is submitted that as per said clause, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of age relaxation and accordingly, she is deemed to be within the age-limit, while considering her candidature for promotion to the post of Supervisor. Thus, a direction is sought that candidature of the petitioner should be considered in the light of Rule 14 (2) of the Rules of 1998. Rule 14 (2) reads as under :- “14 (2) the person appointed temporarily to a post in the service shall be deemed to be within the age limit had they been within the age limit when they were initially appointed even though they may have crossed the upper age limit when they appear finally before the Commission/Appointing Authority and shall be allowed two chances had they been eligible as such at the time of their initial appointment.” 5 In view of the arguments made above, the matter of the petitioner is required to be considered by the respondents in the light of Rule 14 (2) of the Rules of 1998. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that petitioner's candidature should be considered as per Rules of 1998 for appointment on the post of Supervisor. If the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Rule 14 (2), then, by extending such benefits, the petitioner's case be considered as directed above. The necessary consideration may be made within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. If the petitioner is found eligible and meritorious, then, looking to the fact that pursuant to the interim order of this Court, a post has been kept vacant, the respondent may pass necessary order of appointment in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner would be at liberty to submit a fresh representation along with a copy of this order, so that directions of this Court may come to the notice of the respondents. 6 With the observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (M. N. BHANDARI), J. scd