Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rabish Babu & Ors vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 29 July, 2013
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5/2013 & three others
Rabish Babu & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
1. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5/2013
Rabish Babu & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
2. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22/2013
Mohan Lal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
3. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6/2013
Dinesh Chandra Dadhich & Ors.
vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
4. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21/2013
Jagdish Rai Kasniya & Anr.
vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Order : 29.07.2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Mr C.S.Kotwani, for the petitioners
Mr Rajesh Bhati, for the respondents
BY THE COURT:
All these writ petitions are involved common question of law, therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.
By these writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking appointment on the post of Prabodhak pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.05.2008 issued by respondent No.2.
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5/2013 & three others Rabish Babu & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the candidatures of the petitioners have been rejected while treating them overage. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are working as Shiksha Sahyogi/Para Teacher in Rajeev Gandhi Swarn Jayanti Pathshala, and at the time of their initial appointments, they were within age limit and, therefore, they should be treated within age for the purpose of appointment on the post of Prabodhak, even though they have crossed the age limit fixed for appointment on the post of Prabodhak. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that this Court at Jaipur Bench has already decided this question in SBCWP No.1839/2009 (Smt. Shailesh Verma & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) & 72 other petitions vide order dated 05.09.2012 and has held that if no age limit was provided at the time of initial appointment, then Rule has to be construed to be beneficial to the petitioners because their initial appointments were within the age limit as no limitation of age was provided.
No other point was pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court.
The learned counsel for the respondents fairly agrees that the question of age for the purpose of appointment on the post of Prabodhak has already been decided by this Court in SBCWP No.1839/2009 (Smt. Shailesh Verma & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) (supra), and the matter in hand is squarely covered by the said decision given by this Court on the said point.
This Court in in SBCWP No.1839/2009 has held as S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5/2013 & three others Rabish Babu & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 3 under:
"1.Age of the Candidate:
The first issue is regarding age of candidates, which is governed by Rule13(v) of the Rules of 2008. It is stated that when petitioners were engaged in Rajeev Gandhi Pathshala or any other educational project mentioned in Rule 13(V) of the Rules of 2008, no age limit for appointment was provided. Petitioners are held ineligible ignoring the mandate of the rule wherein one is eligible if he was within age limit at the the time of appointment in any of government educational projects mentioned under the rules.
Learned Additional Advocate General submits for appointment of Para Teachers, initially, no age limit was prescribed but in subsequent Circulars, age limit was provided. Those who were appointed after crossing age limit are not covered by Rule 13
(v) of the Rules of 2008.
I have considered the submissions. Since rule 13(v) of the Rules of 2008 is relevant thus it is quoted here:-
Rule 13(v), that the person serving under the educational project in the State viz. Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala/Shiksha Karmi board/Lok Jumbish Pariyojana /Serva 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."
A perusal of Rule shows that if a person is serving under any of the educational project referred, then would be treated to be within the age limit for appointment as Prabodhak, if they were within the S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5/2013 & three others Rabish Babu & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.4
age limit at the time of initial engagements. The interpretation of Rule suggests that if any age limit was provided for appointment in any educational projects then a person over age or under age at the time of initial appointment would not be covered by the Rule 13(v) of the Rules of 2008. However, if no age limit was provided at the time of initial appointments, then Rule has to be construed to be beneficial to the petitioners because their initial appointment was within the age limit as no limit of age was provided. The rule does not suggest age limit for initial appointment would be as provided under the rules of 2008. In view of the aforesaid, the first issue is decided in favour of the petitioners. If no age limit was provided at the time of initial appointment then their appointment would be treated within the age limit and accordingly, be covered by Rule 13(v) of the Rules of 2008. It is however, made clear that if an appointment was made after change in the policy and after providing age limit, then the case of such candidate would be considered only if he was within the age limit at the time of initial appointment."
This Court is of the opinion that the point raised by the petitioners regarding the age of the Prabodhak is squarely covered by the above point and, therefore, the writ petitions preferred by the petitioners are disposed of in terms of the decision of this Court in SBCWP No.1839/2009 (Smt. Shailesh Verma & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) (supra) on the point No.1 only.
[VIJAY BISHNOI],J.
m.asif/-