Rajasthan High Court - JodhpurMan Singh Rawat vs State & Ors on 9 September, 2011Author:Govind MathurBench:Govind Mathur1

          S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9667/2008


                        Man Singh Rawat
                               Vs.
                    State of Rajasthan & Ors.


                Date of Order       :   09.9.2011


          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR

Mr. V.R. Choudhary, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Bhati for Mr. RL Jangid, Additional Advocate General,
for the respondents.
                              ...The case of the petitioner is that in view of Division Bench

judgment of this Court inSmt. Kamla Kumari & 2 Ors. Vs. State

of Rajasthan & Ors., the respondents are required to consider his

candidature for the purpose of appointment as Prabodhak, by

extending relaxation in the maximum age limit as per Proviso (v)

of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service

Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules of 2008'). It is

stated that the petitioner entered in the services at the first

instance on 01.7.1999 being appointed as Para Teacher       with

Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala, Pabu        Ji Ki Dhani, Gram Panchayat,

Bhagwanpura. At the time of appointment as Para Teacher, his

age was 39 years and one month, therefore, a relaxation as per

Proviso (v) of Rule 13 to the Rules of 2008 should have been

given to him.2The Proviso (v) of Rule 13 provides that 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 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.The case of the respondents is that the petitioner at the

time of appointment as Para Teacher was not within the age limit

and, therefore, he is not entitled for getting any relaxation as per

Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008. The Division Bench

of this Court in the case ofSmt. Kamla Kumari          and 2 Ors.(supra) has explained that the expression "age limit" as

occurring in the said proviso refers undoubtedly the age limit as

prescribed in Rule 13 and i.e. 35 years.In view of the judgment aforesaid the maximum age limit

of the petitioner as on 1.7.1999 is required to be determined as

per the age limit prescribed under Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the3Rules     of 2008 by taking into consideration the age limit

         aforesaid with relaxation of five years, for which the petitioner is

         entitled being a member of Other Backward Class. The petitioner

         on getting the relaxation of five years, acquires the age of 39

         years and one month, meaning thereby he is to be treated within

         the age limit given under Rule 13, as such, he is certainly having

         a right to be considered for appointment as Prabodhak under the

         Rules of 2008.Accordingly,   this   petition   for   writ   is   allowed.   The

         respondents are required to consider the candidature of the

         petitioner for the purpose of appointment as Prabodhak by

         treating him within the age limit prescribed for the post

         concerned. No order as to costs.(GOVIND MATHUR), J.Sanjay