IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6794/02 Ku. Ritu Parashar vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of order : 3/7/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ashish Saksena for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Raghav for the respondents. ****** This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity of Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970 which require 24 years as the minimum age of eligibility for the post of school lecturer. The argument in support of challenge to the vires to the aforesaid rule is based on the premise that in all other service rules for appointment in the services of the respondents including as Lecturer and on other posts in the Education Department, the different age i.e. 20 years has been prescribed as the minimum age. Petitioner was denied the right to appointment pursuant to advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 2001- Annexure-2. Learned counsel invited attention of the Court towards the judgement of coordinate bench of this Court in Anita Kumari & Anr. vs. State & Raj. & Anr.-2005 (7) RDD 2323 (Raj.). In that case too, two writ petitioners had approached this Court challenging the vires of very same Rule 10 in the context of the advertisement dated 18.8.2004, on the same ground as raised in the present petition. Number of other service Rules namely Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1971, Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 and the Rules relating to appointment on the post of Lecturer in Health, Education and Family Planning (Non-Medical) Departments and the post of Senior Teacher in Sanskrit Education Department were cited in support of the argument of distinction as well as the argument that there was no nexus with the object sought to be achieved in prescribing the higher age of eligibility than the one prescribed in other Rules. This Court on consideration of the aforesaid arguments in para 29 to 32 observed as under:- “29. The RPSC may be correct in its approach that for two separate service the Government of Rajasthan, looking to the object and purpose sought to be achieved, may prescribe different minimum age eligibility. The principle is almost settled that there may not be perfect equality in any manner on absolute scientific basis and there may be certain inequalities here and there but the classification made is correct and serve a particular purpose the same may not be judicially interfered with. The State of Rajasthan has to provide necessary factual data to justify the prescription of minimum age eligibility and making the Lecturers in School Education solitary service prescribing 24 years as the minimum age eligibility in comparison to all other services including the teaching posts in the higher education, Sanskrit education, medical education (non-clinical subjects) in regard to the minimum age eligibility. 30. Looking to the nature of the duties to be discharged and the object to be fulfilled the post of Lecturer in School Education, Lecturer in College Education, Lecturer in Medical Colleges (Non-clinical subjects), Senior Teacher in Sanskrit Education, the Teachers in the Physical Training Centers or the B.Ed. Colleges, it is not gainsay that the work is of teaching, may be of different subjects. The academic eligibility in almost all the aforesaid services in Post Graduation in the subject concerned. 31. That apart in Indian Administrative Services, Indian Police Services, Indian Accounts Services and other allied services and the Rajasthan Administrative Services, Rajasthan Police Services, Rajasthan Accounts Services and other allied services, where the posts carry much higher pay scales than that of the Lecturer in School Education, the minimum age eligibility is 21 years. Thus, there is apparent discrimination made by the respondent State by prescribing the minimum age eligibility of 24 years under the Rules, 1971. 32. It is to be stated at the cost of repetition that so far as the job is concerned it is a teaching to the students, may be in different disciplines and the classification made by the respondent State re the age eligibility for appointment/selection on the teaching post of Lecturer in School Education, College Education, Medical Education (non-clinical subjects), Teachers Training Colleges or the Physical Training Centres, do not stand to the test for valid classification and the classification is not founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from other left out of the group and this differentia do not have rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. Thus, the Rule 10 of the Rules, 1970 to the extent it provides the minimum age eligibility of 24 years on the first day of July next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications for appointment on the post of Lecturer in School Education suffers from vice of hostile discrimination. It is, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and none other than the Secretary to the Government, Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, who is personally present in the Court, has in substance accepted the same. As a result of the aforesaid discussion I am satisfied that ths part of the Rule, which makes discrimination as regards to the minimum age eligibility in almost all identical services, cannot be allowed to stand on the statute. Taking the aforesaid view, this Court declared that part of the Rule 10 of the Rules 1970 as ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by which it prescribes 24 years as the minimum age of eligibility. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced before the Court the policy obtained from the National Information Centre and submitted that the aforesaid judgement has attained finality and no appeal thereagainst has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice was issued of the writ petition by this Court to the respondent on 17.10.2002, and by way of an ad interim order required the respondents to permit the petitioner provisionally for interview and further directed that her result should be kept in sealed cover. In view of the fact that Rule 10 of the Rules of 1970 in so far as it prescribes 24 years as minimum age for eligibility has already been declared ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution, the requirement of 24 years as the minimum age cannot be insisted upon and as the petitioner was 23 years of age at the relevant time which is more than 21 years, she is held to be eligible to apply for appointment on the post of School Lecturer (English). The respondents are therefore directed to declare the result of the petitioner and in case the petitioner is found to have been selected on her merit, forward her case for appointment to the Government in accordance with the Rules. Compliance of the judgement be made within three months from the date copy of the judgement is produced before the respondents. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/