RAJENDRA SINGH RATHORE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the vires of Rule 286A of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. The petitioners seek pay parity with the Prabodhaks, in terms of the benefits granted to them under Rule 37A of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008.

(2.) The petitioners were working as ad-hoc teachers in the State Government schools. They were carrying designations such as 'Shiksha Karmi', 'Shiksha Sahyogi' or 'Para-teachers' and were engaged under various schemes of the State Government for imparting education in the Government schools, particularly in rural areas. They were paid fixed honorarium. All the petitioners where eligible for appointment to the post of teacher grade-III. They appeared in the examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission ('RPSC' for short) for selection and appointment to the said post in the year 2007-2008. All the petitioners were selected and appointed as teacher grade-III in Government schools.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioners is that this benefit, which is granted to the Prabodhaks, is not made available to them. According to the petitioners, they also had similar experience as para teachers and if the principle contained in Rule 37A of the Rules of 2008 were to be applied to them, they would also get additional increment in their pay scales. The petitioners contend that they hold the same educational qualifications and experience as a Prabodhak. They also perform the same nature of duties and carry the same responsibilities as a Prabodhak. Despite these similarities, a Prabodhak receives higher pay than the petitioners, which according to the petitioners, amounts to discrimination and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also breaches the principle of equal pay for equal work. Rule 286A of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules of 1996') provides that the probationer trainee appointed to the service by direct recruitment shall be paid fixed monthly remuneration during the period of probation at such rates as may be fixed by the Government from time to time. This Rule is thus pari materia to Rule 37 of the Rules of 2008. However, since Rules of 1996 do not contain any Rule similar to Rule 37A of the Rules of 2008, the petitioners contend that Rule 286A is discriminatory and therefore violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and hence unconstitutional.