RAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The Appellants have put in question the sustainability of the order dt. 2.9.2008 passed by the Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6109/2008 decided with forty eight other writ applications. The prayer has been made by the Appellants to declare ultra vires Rules 13(v) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rule, 2008, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2008". A prayer has also been made to quash the advertisement dt. 31.5.2008.

(3.) The Appellants are teachers working in the Non-Govt. Aided Institutions and their service conditions are governed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1989 and the Rules framed thereunder in the year 1993. As per Section 29 of the Act of 1989, the Appellants are at par with the Govt. employees working in the Govt. institutions on regular basis in the matter of payment of pay scales. It is submitted that as per Rule 14 of the Rules of 2008, the teaching experience required was the same for all. The Appellants possessed the teaching experience as mentioned in Rule 14 alongwith the category of persons, enumerated in the special condition of Rule 13(v) of the Rules of 2008. Rule 13(v) of the Rules of 2008 provides special relaxation as to age that the persons working under the Educational Projects 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 appointed, though they may have crossed the age limit at the time of direct recruitment of Prabodhak. Appellants submitted that the classification, which has been made denying the similar benefit of age as given to the employees working in various projects, is, per se, discriminatory. The State Government has given aid to the extent of 80% to the Non-Govt. Educational Institutions. There is no rhyme or reason so as to exclude the persons for relaxation of age on similar basis as provided under Rule 13(v) of the Rules of 2008. The Controlling Authority is the State Govt. for all practical purposes. No object can be achieved by denying the right of concession to the teachers in the Non-Govt. Educational Institutions. The Rule is illegal & arbitrary and the classification made cannot be said to be reasonable one. The exclusion of the class to which the Appellants belong, has no rationale behind it.