DINESH KUMAR SHARMA SON OF SHRI PRABHU DAYAL SHARMA Vs. SECRETARY, PRIMARY EDUCATION, JAIPUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue in the writ petition is the interpretation of the Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabhodak Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 2008').

(2.) The fact of the case are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.05.2008, the petitioner sought appointment on the post of Prabhodhak under the Rules of 2008. He was required to appear for the interview on 108.2008 which he did, but did not find his name in the select list. Representations were of no avail. He in the circumstances filed petition No. 12287/2008 which was decided on 07.01.2009 and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's representation for appointment to the post of Prabhodak. The petitioner's representation following the judgment dated 07.01.2009 has however since been rejected by the impugned order dated 01.10.2009 on the ground that he as on 01.10.2009 the relevant date, being 46 years 10 months 25 years of age, was overage and therefore not entitled to appointment as Prabhodhak under the Rules of 2008.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 01.10.2009 is vitiated for non-application of mind in failing to allow the petitioner benefit of Proviso (v) of the Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008. Counsel submitted that the proviso aforesaid states that where one seeking appointment on the post of Prabhodhak was prior thereto serving under the notified educational projects of the State such as Lok Jumbish Pariyojana, and was within age limit when initially engaged, even in the event of being overage at the time of recruitment of Prabhodhaks, he was to be deemed within the age limit of 35 years as set out in Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008. It was submitted that the maximum age for appointment under the Lok Jumbish Pariyojana was 40 years and as the petitioner was within the said maximum age limit when so appointed and continued on the aforesaid post till the time of recruitment to the post of Prabhodhak under the Rules of 2008, he ought to have been deemed within the age limit under the Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 with the aid of Proviso (v). Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shailesh Verma & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in SBCWP No. 1839/2009 decided on 05.09.2012 whereunder a single Judge of this Court held that if a person was recruited, being of the prescribed age at the relevant time, in any of the educational projects referred to in the Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 and was so serving when appointments to the post of Prabhodhak were made, he was to be considered within age limit for appointment as Prabhodhak in terms of Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008. The single Judge held that if no age limit obtained for appointment under any one of the educational projects referred in Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008, even then in view of the said proviso being beneficial in nature the mere fact of a valid appointment in the educational project by itself would entail conferment of the benefits of Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 to such candidate if working on the said post when recruitment of Prabhodhak was done. The Single Judge specifically discounted submitted counsel for the petitioner, the argument that Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 suggested that one working with the educational projects referred to therein were required to be within the age limit of 35 years of age when appointed, as warranted for appointment on the post of Prabhodhak under Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 and only in that eventuality benefit of Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 would be available. It was submitted that D.B. Civil Special Appeal (w) No. 14/2013 titled as Suresh Chand Bairwa & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. impugning the aforesaid judgment in the case of Shailesh Verma & Anr. (supra) was dismissed on 21.09.2016 holding that the single Judge had interpreted the Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 correctly.