1
SBCW NO. 5483/08
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
O R D E R
Lehru Lal Jat
Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Others
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5483/2008
.........
Date of Order : 15.10.2009
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR
Mr. Sandeep Shah for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Bhati for Mr. R.L.Jangid, AAG for the respondents.
BY THE COURT
By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the
respondents to consider his case for appointment on the post of
Prabodhak in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.5.2008
issued by the respondents and declare that the petitioner was
within age limit for consideration of his candidature for
appointment on the post of Prabodhak in pursuance of the
advertisement dated 31.5.2008.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner was initially engaged on the post of Instructor
under the Panchayati Samiti, Chittorgarh by order dated 20.5.91
and he discharged the duties on the post of Instructor till
31.3.2001. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the
petitioner has been discharging the duties of para-teacher since
01.7.99. The petitioner applied for the post of Prabodhak under
2
SBCW NO. 5483/08
the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 (for
short ‘the Rules of 2008’ hereinafter). According to learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was possessing five
years continuous teaching experience without any break in the
recognized educational institution/ educational project, however,
he has been denied consideration on the ground that on the
relevant date i.e. last date for submission of application, the
petitioner has already crossed the age as provided under Rule 13
of the Rules of 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied on a decision of this Court in Amar Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan and Ors., S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 6118/08 decided
on 20.2.2009. In that case, the date of birth of the petitioner
therein was 13.2.1966 i.e. on the date of joining as Shiksha
Sahyogi on 03.7.2002, his age was 35 years 07 months. The
Proviso to Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 provides that upper age
limit mentioned in Rule 13 shall be relaxed by five years in case
of male candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC. Proviso (v) to Rule
13 further provides 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. In that case, the
petitioner therein was member of Other Backward Class and
therefore, entitled for five years relaxation and as such on the
last date of filing of application, his age could have been
35+5=40 years and he was less than 40 years of age.
3
SBCW NO. 5483/08
Considering the provisions of Rule 13 (v) and the proviso thereto
providing the relaxation of age, the petitioner therein was held to
be within age limit. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that programme of non-formal/informal education was also
conducted by the State Govt. and the educational institution/
project enumerated in Section 13 is not exhaustive.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
petitioner was neither engaged in Rajeev Gandhi Swarn Jayanti
Pathshala/ Siksha Karmi Board/ Lok Jumbish Pariyojna/ sarva
Siksha Abhiyan/ District Primary Education Programme nor the
educational institution run by State Govt. On the contrary, the
petitioner was engaged in non-formal/informal education and he
was not on full time appointment and according to learned
counsel for the respondent, the scheme of non-formal/ informal
education is to motivate and teach such students wherever they
are found even either at Panchayat or at any other places in
villages and motivate them for education particularly children
between 6 to 14 years of age and therefore, the case of the
petitioner does not fall in the categories provided under Rule 13
of the Rules of 2008. Learned counsel for the respondent has
also relied on a decision of this Court in Sumer Singh Rathore Vs.
State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3899/08
decided on 08.08.08 wherein the petitioner therein was at the
ripe age of 48 years and sought relaxation in maximum age limit
for the purpose of consideration for appointment to the post of
Prabodhak under Rule 13 (v) of the Rules of 2008. This Court
held that the petitioner is in the ripe age of 48 years and
therefore, now grant of age relaxation while making appointment
4
SBCW NO. 5483/08
to the post of Prabodhak shall not at all be in public interest and
dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner therein. Learned
counsel for the respondents has also relied on a decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and another Vs.
Monirujjaman Mullick and others, AIR 1996 SC 3466, wherein
the doctrine of equal pay for equal work came to be examined by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In that case, the State Government
implemented a scheme for imparting non-formal education to
the children in the age group of 9/11 years who were either
school drop-outs or did not go to school. The scheme provided
for the opening of non-formal education centres (Part time) by
the State Government with the help of Central Government
grant. The non-formal centres were part-time institutions. The
instructors were given a fixed honorarium of Rs.105/- per month
at the primary level and Rs. 125/- per month at the upper
primary level. Persons with a motivation to serve the community
particularly weaker sections were appointed instructors. They
were required to teach the children for two hours a day. The
centres were run by the Panchayat Samities in rural areas and
by the Municipal Committees/ Corporations in urban areas. There
were no specific buildings or sites for the centres. The instructors
could use any site or building belonging to a social organisation
or a local authority. On these premises, the Hon’ble Apex Court
held as under:-
“The non-formal educational centres cannot be
equated with the primary schools which are regularly
run by the Educational Department of the State
Government. Apart from the basic qualitative
differences between the two institutions even the
nature of work of the non-formal instructors and the
primary school teachers is not identical. The method
5
SBCW NO. 5483/08of appointment, the source of recruitment, method of
teaching, hours of teaching and the mode of payment
are entirely different. Thus, the instructors appointed
under the scheme could not claim same scales of pay
and allowances as are admissible and paid to regular
primary school teachers of Education Department of
the State Government. The doctrine of equal pay for
equal work could not be invoked.”
In the instant case, indisputably the petitioner was
initially engaged for imparting non-formal/informal education and
this fact has not been disputed. Even it is the case of the
petitioner himself that he was initially engaged for non-
formal/informal education scheme as instructor. On the date of
filing of the writ petition on 6.8.08, the petitioner has already
attained the age of 50 years as mentioned in the writ petition.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my
view, the case of the petitioner does not fall in the age relaxation
as provided in Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008. As the petitioner
was neither engaged by the State Govt. in Rajeev Gandhi Swarn
Jayanti Pathshala/ Siksha Karmi Board/ Lok Jumbish Pariyojna/
sarva Siksha Abhiyan/ District Primary Education Programme and
therefore, the relaxation provided under Rule 13 (v) of the Rules
of 2008 and proviso thereto has no application to the case of the
petitioner. In this view of the matter, the decision relied on by
learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help to the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in
the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. No
order as to costs.
(H.R.PANWAR), J.
rp
6
SBCW NO. 5483/08
S.B.Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 9841/08
In
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5483/08
Date of Order : 15/10/2009
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR.
Mr. Sandeep Shah for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Bhati for Mr. R.L.Jangid, AAG for the respondents.
Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the
stay petition also stands dismissed.
(H.R.PANWAR), J.
rp