Lekhraj Singh Jadaun and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Heard Mr. Akshat Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned AAG for the respondents-

The validity of the following proviso added to Rule 265 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996 as introduced by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (II-Amendment) Rules, 2012 has been challenged:

"(xi) the upper age limit mentioned above, for the person who is continuously working on contract basis under any scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchyati Raj as Junior Technical Assistant, Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine (except engaged through placement agency), LDC Lekha Sahayak, Co-ordinator IEC, Co-ordinator Training, Coordinator Supervision or on any post, shall be relaxed by a period equal to the service rendered by him, subject to maximum of 5 years."

Thereby except to those working on contract basis on being engaged through placement agency under any of the schemes and in the posts referred to therein, relaxation in the upper age limit, otherwise prescribed, by a period equal to the service rendered by other candidates, subject to maximum of 5 years, had been accorded.

The impugnment of the validity of this amendment is principally on the ground that the exclusion of the persons, engaged through placement agency though performing similar works, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

It is submitted at the Bar that a similar challenge pertaining to the second proviso to Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 as amended vide the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2013 whereby a distinction was sought to be introduced for grant of bonus marks by way of weightage contingent on the length of experience as referred to therein acquired by the persons engaged on the post of Junior Technical Assistant, Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Coordinator IEC, Coordinator Training, Coordinator Supervision in MANREGA or any scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the State, however, excluding those recruited through placement agency, had been held to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India by a coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in series of writ petitions, the lead case being Mitendra Singh Rathore & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1723/2013, vide judgment and order dated 30.07.2013] and consequently, the impugned second proviso to Rule 273 had been read down as hereunder:

"Provided also that in case of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of such weightage as may be specified by the State Government for the marks obtained in Senior Secondary or its equivalent examination and such marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience exceeding on year acquired by persons engaged on the post of Junior Technical Assistant (J.T.A.), Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Co-ordinator IEC, Coordinator Training, Coordinator Supervision in MANREGA or in any other scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchyati Raj in the State."

It is further submitted at the Bar that being aggrieved by this determination, meanwhile, the State has filed Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 32671/2013 before the Hon''ble Apex Court and the same is presently sub judice before it.

The judgment and order dated 09.01.2014 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Kaushal Jayaswal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5879/2013] reveals that on the analogy of reasonings as contained in the Mitendra Singh Rathore (supra), the said proceedings had been disposed in the same lines, however, making the decision to that effect subject to the final verdict to be rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the aforementioned Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that having regard to the determination made in Mitendra Singh Rathore (supra) and the principle of law laid down therein, the denial of benefit of relaxation of age, as contemplated in the new proviso to Rule 265 of the Rules as introduced by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (II Amendment) Rules, 2012 on the criteria of engagement through placement agency, ought to be similarly held to be violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

Mr. Gupta, learned AAG has submitted in response that though a perceptible inter-relation between such issue in Mitendra Singh Rathore (supra) and as it obtains in the present case is discernible, the final determination of the Hon''ble Apex Court thereon, being awaited any decision in these lines be made subject thereto.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the unhesitant opinion that there is a tangible and existing interrelation between the issue decided in Mitendra Singh Rathore (supra) and the one vis-�-vis the proviso to Rule 265 of the Rules as introduced by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (II Amendment) Rules, 2012. The denial of the benefit of relaxation of age, as envisaged in the proviso, to the candidates engaged through placement agency suffers from the same vice as noticed in Mitendra Singh Rathore (supra) and the reasonings contained in the said judgment, in our view, do apply vis-�-vis the challenge to the new proviso to Rule 265 of the Rules as introduced by the amendment. On an analogy of reasonings as recorded in Mitendra Singh Rathore (supra), we are, therefore, inclined to hold that the exclusion of the candidates from the benefit of relaxation of age, as extended by the proviso to Rule 265 as introduced by the amendment, to the candidates engaged through placement agency, but performing identical works in the scheme and posts mentioned therein, cannot be sustained on the touchstone of guarantee of equality as enshrined under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. We are thus, of the view that the aforementioned proviso ought to be read down as hereunder:

"(xi) the upper age limit mentioned above, for the person who is continuously working on contract basis under any scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchyati Raj as Junior Technical Assistant, Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, LDC Lekha Sahayak, Co-ordinator IEC, Co-ordinator Training, Co-ordinator Supervision or on any post, shall be relaxed by a period equal to the service rendered by him, subject to maximum of 5 years."

The challenge is thus answered accordingly. The petition, therefore, stands disposed in these lines.

We, however, make it absolutely clear that this rendering would be subject to the final verdict of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal Petition(s) No(s). 32671/2013. We also make it clear that this decision only answers the issue pertaining to relaxation of age as has been dealt with herein in specific terms and would not be construed to be a precedent on other aspects incidental thereto and involved in other petitions pending before this Court.

A copy of this order be placed in both the files.