1 D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.875/2009. Dinesh Chandra Dadhich Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. ... Date of Order :: 5th May 2010. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. SAPRE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Ramesh Purohit, for the appellant. <><><> BY THE COURT: This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 07.10.2009 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition (CWP No. 5709/2008) filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents for consideration of his candidature for appointment on the post of Prabodhak pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.05.2008 and to declare him within age limit as per Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 ('the Rules of 2008'). The learned Single Judge disagreed with the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner-appellant with reference to the provisions as contained in proviso (v) to Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 and dismissed the writ petition. The said provision 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: Provided- (i) to (iv) xxx xxx xxx (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 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. xxx xxx xxx '' 2 It is noticed that the issue sought to be raised in this intra-court appeal particularly on the interpretation, operation and effect of proviso (v) to Rule 13 of the Rules 2008 has been considered and decided by this Court in a batch of appeals led by D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 436/2009 (Smt. Kamla Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others), on 16.04.2010 wherein this Court, inter alia, said,- “The expression “age limit” as occurring in the said proviso refers, undoubtedly and only, to the age limit as prescribed in the principal provision of Rule 13, i.e., 35 years; and not to any other age limit. The relaxation has been provided to the persons who have crossed the age limit prescribed by Rule 13 ibid at the time of direct recruitment if, and only if, they are serving in any of the named projects and they had not crossed the said age limit prescribed by Rule 13 at the time of initial engagement in the project. The expression ''had they been within age limit'' does not refer to the age limit, if any, for the purpose of entry into such educational projects but, in view of its very purpose and context, refers to the age limit as provided for the recruitment in question i.e., recruitment to the post of Prabodhak.” The principles aforesaid directly and squarely apply to the petitioner whose date of birth is 25.11.1963; and who was initially appointed as Para Teacher by the order dated 30.06.1999. Obviously, he was more than 35 years of age at the time of his initial engagement as Para Teacher. In the true operation of the Rules of 2008, the appellant cannot be held entitled to the age relaxation under Rule 13 ibid. Following the decision in Smt. Kamla Kumari (supra), this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. (A.M. SAPRE), J. /Mohan/