RAJ DULARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioners against the post of Mahila Supervisor by setting aside appointment of lesser meritorious persons on the post of Mahila Supervisor on 13.5.2002.

(2.) It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were already working as Aangan Bari Workers with the respondents and therefore they could not be considered age-barred. Besides, the petitioners were being female and were therefore entitled to relaxation of age of 5 years as been provided to them under relevant rules Reliance in this connection has been placed on Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Women and Child Development (State and Subordinate) Services Rules, 1998 and the judgment of co-ordinate bench of this Court rendered in the case titled as Smt. Usha Rani vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4469 of 2002) decided on 19.2.2003.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents however opposed the writ petition and submitted that while petitioner No. 1 was 43 years old at the time of selection, petitioners No. 2 and 3 were both 39 years old even if the benefit of first proviso to Rule 14 of the Rules of 1998 is extended, none of them qualify. As regards proviso (2) to Rule 14 of the Rules of 1998, it was contended that the said rule requires that the persons appointed temporarily to the post in the service shall be deemed to be within the age limit, had they been within the age limit when they were initially appointed even though they may have crossed the upper age limit when they appear finally before the Commission/Appointing Authority and shall be allowed upto two chances, had they been eligible as such at the time of their initial appointment. It was argued that the appointment on one post cannot be made basis for age relaxation for appointment on another post.