Judgment:
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
1. These three intra-court appeals, preferred against similar nature orders dated 06.04.2009 as passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the respective writ petitions, having almost similar facts and involving identical questions, have been heard together; and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment. Put in a nutshell, the grievance of the petitioners-appellants is against rejection of their candidature for the post of Prabodhak pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.05.2008, issued under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 ('the Rules of 2008'), while considering them over-aged; and, according to the appellants, they have not been provided upper age relaxation though entitled therefor in terms of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008.
2. The relevant facts and background aspects concerning these matters could be noticed in brief thus: The respondent No. 2, the Director, Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner issued the advertisement dated 31.05.2008 inviting applications from the eligible candidates under the Rules of 2008 for appointment on the post of Prabodhak while specifying district-wise allocation of the posts. The matter in issue herein relates to the age requirement for the recruitment in question; and apposite it shall be to refer to the stipulations in that regard as stated in the said advertisement thus:
vk;q% 1- 1-1-09 dks U;wure vk;q 23 o'kZ rFkk vf/kdre 35 o'kZ gksxh rFkk vtk@vttk@vfio oxZ ds vk'kkFkhZ dks 5 o'kZ dh vf/kdre vk;q lhek esa NwV ns; gksxhA bu oxZ dh efgykvksa dks vf/kdre vk;q lhek esa 10 o'kZ dh NwV ns; gksxhA HkwriwoZ lSfud ds ekeys esa] vf/kdre vk;q lhek 50 o'kZ gksxh A fo/kok vH;FkhZ;ksa ds fy, lsok dh vf/kdre vk;q rd ijh vk;q lhek ugha gksxhA
2- jkT; ds 'kS{kf.kd ifj;kstuk vFkkZr~ jktho xka/kh ikB'kkyk@f'k{kkdehZ;kstuk@yksdtqfEc'k ifj;kstuk@loZf'k{kk vfHk;ku@MhihbZih ds v/khu lsokjr O;fDr;ksa dks] ;fn os izkjafHkd fu;qfDr ds le; vk;q lhek esa Fks] vk;q lhek esa le>k tk,xk] pkgs mUgksus bl HkrhZ ds le; vk;q lhek ikj dj yh gks
3. The date of birth of the appellant Smt. Kamla Kumari (SAW No. 436/2009) is stated to be 05.07.1960; she was selected as Shiksha Sahyaogi as per the order dated 15.06.2001 and, after having joined on 17.07.2001 at the Government Primary School, 10 SDP, Panchayat Samiti, Sadulshahar District Sriganganagar, she has continuously been working as such. Pursuant to the advertisement aforesaid, the petitioner-appellant submitted her application in the office of respondent No. 2 on 18.06.2008 but then, according to the appellant, she was informed about non- consideration of her candidature for being over-aged.
4. Similar facts concerning the appellant Jagdish Rai Kasniya (SAW No. 437/2009) are that his date of birth is 03.03.1959; he was initially engaged as Shiksha Sahyogi on 26.06.1999; he too applied under the aforesaid advertisement dated 31.05.2008 for the post of Prabodhak and his candidature was also declined on the same ground of being over-aged. Similarly, such candidature of the appellant Shyamlal Sharma (SAW No. 438/2009) was also declined for his date of birth being 05.03.1958 and his having been initially engaged as Shiksha Sahyogi on 24.05.1999.
5. Admittedly, all the appellants had been above 40 years of age when they were initially engaged as Shiksha Sahyogi; and as on 01.01.2009, the relevant reckoning date for the purpose of age requirement under the aforesaid advertisement dated 31.05.2008, they were above 48 years of age.
6. The appellants, while referring to a representation dated 09.08.2008, allegedly made by the District Secretary, Rajasthan Shiksha Sahyogi Para Teachers Sangh, Sriganganagar, preferred the respective writ petitions for being aggrieved of the denial of consideration of their candidature.
7. It was essentially submitted on behalf of the petitioners- appellants before the learned Single Judge that they were initially appointed as Shiksha Sahyogi on the recommendations of the selection committee; and for the purpose of such appointment, the requirement was that a candidate should have completed 18 years of age but there was no outer limit regarding the age. The petitioners- appellants contended that since there was no outer limit for the age prescribed for appointment on the post of Shiksha Sahyogi, they were within the age limit when initially appointed as Shiksha Sahyogi and hence, as per Proviso (v) to Rule 13 ibid, would be deemed to be within age limit for the purpose of direct recruitment to the post of Prabodhak.
8. The learned Single Judge disagreed with the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners-appellants with reference to the provisions as contained in Proviso (v) to Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 and dismissed the writ petitions.
9. Assailing the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, the learned Counsel for the petitioners-appellants strenuously contended that when the appellants were treated to be within age limit at the time of the initial engagement as Shiksha Sahyogi, in the true operation of Proviso (v) to Rule 13, they ought to have been treated within age limit for the purpose of the recruitment in question. The learned Counsel submitted that at the time of initial engagement of the appellants, there was no upper age limit prescribed and hence, they were within the age for being engaged as Shiksha Sahyogi and, thus, cannot be denied the benefit of the Rules of 2008 that have been promulgated essentially to regularise the services of the persons like the appellants.
10. During the course of submissions, the learned Counsel also attempted to canvass that in one of the districts, certain persons of about 40-41 years of age at the time of initial entry into the projects have been accorded appointment and the respondents are not entitled to discriminate. It was further sought to be argued in relation to some of the appellants that they were entitled to the benefit of five years' age relaxation as being the candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes.
11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants and have examined the record with reference to the Rules of 2008.
12. The age requirements and relaxations in the advertisement aforesaid have been stated in conformity with Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 that could be usefully noticed as under:
13. Age.-A candidate for direct recruitment to a post enumerated in the Schedule must have attained the age of 23 years and must not have attained the age of 35 years on the first day of January following the last date fixed for receipt of applications:
Provided
(i) that the upper age limit mentioned above, shall be relaxed by 5 years in the case of male candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward classes.
(ii) that the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by 5 years in case of women candidates belonging to General Category.
(iii) that the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by 10 years in the case of woman candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes.
(iv) that the upper age limit mentioned above shall be 50 years in the case of Ex-service personnel and the reservists, namely the Defense Service Personnel who were transferred to the reserve.
(v) that the person serving under the educational project 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 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.
(vi) that the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by a period equal to the service rendered in the NCC in the case of Cadet instructors and if the resultant age does not exceed the prescribed maximum age limit by more than three years, they shall be deemed to be within the prescribed age limit.
(vii) that the Released Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers after release from the Army shall be deemed to be within the age limit even though they have crossed the age limit when they appear before the Committee had they been eligible as such at the time of their joining the Commission in the Army.
(viii) that there shall be no upper age limit in the case of widows and divorced women.
Explanation: That in the case of widow, she will have to furnish a certificate of death of her husband from the Competent Authority and in case of divorce, she will have to furnish the proof of divorce.
13. A bare look at Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 makes it clear that for direct recruitment to the posts enumerated in Schedule to the Rules (the post of Prabodhak for the present purpose), a candidate must have attained the age of 23 years and must not have attained the age of 35 years on the first date of January following the last date fixed for receipt of the application. Accordingly, the advertisement dated 31.05.2008 mentioned the requirement that the candidate ought not to have crossed 35 years as on 01.01.2009. There are certain age relaxations provided in the Provisos to Rule 13 and the same have duly been incorporated in the advertisement as reproduced hereinbefore. So far the persons working in educational projects are concerned, Proviso (v) to Rule 13 is clear, explicit and unambiguous that even if they had crossed the prescribed age limit at the time of direct recruitment, they would be deemed to be within age limit had they been within age limit when initially engaged.
14. The petitioners-appellants suggest that because there was no upper age limit prescribed for entry into the project as Shiksha Sahyogi and because they were ''within age'' at the time of entry into the project, they should be treated to be within age for the purpose of the Rules of 2008. The argument remains fallacious and untenable. Proviso (v) to Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 has been made specifically for the purpose of the persons serving under any of the named educational project; but then, even while creating a fiction and providing relaxation for the persons serving under the educational projects, care has been taken to extend such benefit only to the persons who were otherwise within the age limit when initially engaged on such projects and not to all and sundry. The frame of Proviso (v) to Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 makes it clear that quite conscious of the likelihood of persons of different age being engaged in such projects, including the persons like the appellants who got engaged at a much older age, the provision has specifically been made for restricting the relaxation only to such persons working in the projects who were within the age prescribed for direct recruitment in question at the time of such initial engagement. The proviso is obviously not intended to provide age relaxation indiscriminately to all the persons engaged in the projects. The relaxation has been provided only to the persons who, at the time of their initial engagement in the project, were within the age limit that has been prescribed for the purpose of recruitment in question.
15. The expression 'age limit' as occurring in the said proviso refers, undoubtedly and only, to the age limit as prescribed in the principal provision of Rule 13, i.e., 35 years; and not to any other age limit. The relaxation has been provided to the persons who have crossed the age limit prescribed by Rule 13 ibid at the time of direct recruitment if, and only if, they are serving in any of the named projects and they had not crossed the said age limit prescribed by Rule 13 at the time of initial engagement in the project. The expression ''had they been within age limit'' does not refer to the age limit, if any, for the purpose of entry into such educational projects but, in view of its very purpose and context, refers to the age limit as provided for the recruitment in question i.e., recruitment to the post of Prabodhak.
16. We are not impressed with the suggestion that the Rules of 2008 have been promulgated only for the purpose of regularising the services of the persons working in educational projects. The Rules of 2008 have been framed specifically to regulate the services under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and different provisos to Rule 13 ibid dealing with the age requirement, have only spelt out various aspects of age relaxation. Merely because the Rules of 2008 provide for some relaxation, it cannot be deduced or presumed that the intention was to regularise all the persons serving in the projects en bloc.
17. The suggestion as made before this Court about engagement of certain persons in one of the Districts in the State of Rajasthan has only been noted to be rejected. In the first place, there is no foundation of any such fact in the writ petitions nor any such question was posed before the learned Single Judge and without specific facts, such contention cannot be gone into. In any case, any suggestion about any illegality in relation to any particular appointment would not by any stretch of arguments invest the appellants with a right to claim similar illegality. The suggestion about some of the appellants belonging to Other Backward Classes and entitled for further five years age relaxation is also not found argued before the learned Single Judge; and as a matter of fact, even if such five years are added to 35 years, the appellants herein, who had definitely crossed 40 years of age at the time of initial engagement, do not get any benefit yet.
18. The appellant in SAW No. 436/2009 was about 41 years of age at the time of her initial engagement as Shiksha Sahyogi on 17.07.2001 for her date of birth being 05.07.1960; and she was more than 48 years of age as on 01.01.2009. The respondents cannot be said to have committed any illegality in rejecting her candidature. So far the appellant in SAW No. 437/2009 is concerned, his date of birth is 03.03.1959 and he was initially engaged as Shiksha Sahyogi on 26.06.1999. He too, was more than 40 years of age at the time of initial engagement; and more than 49 years of age as on 01.01.2009. Similarly, the appellant in SAW No. 438/2009 was born on 05.03.1958 and was initially engaged as Shiksha Sahyogi on 24.05.1999. He was more than 41 years of age at the time of initial engagement; and more than 50 years of age as on 01.01.2009. In the true operation of the Rules of 2008, these appellants were not entitled to be appointed as Prabodhak.
19. In the aforesaid view of the matter, neither the respondents could be said to have committed any illegality in rejecting the candidature of the appellants nor the learned Single Judge has committed any error in rejecting the writ petitions filed by the appellants. No case is made out for interference in these intra-court appeals.
20. As a result of the aforesaid, these appeals fail and are dismissed. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.