1. Recruitment for teacher posts — Challenge to age relaxation and bonus marks for candidates with experience in government educational projects under service rules. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 530
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7906 OF 2010 With Civil Appeal No. _____ of 2024 [@SLP(C) No.34742/2013] Civil Appeal Nos. 8656-8668/2011 Civil Appeal No. 9618/2011, Civil Appeal No.10709/2011, Civil Appeal No.10712/2011, Civil Appeal No.10711/2011, Civil Appeal No.10710/2011, Civil Appeal No.6898/2012, Civil Appeal No.1668/2012, Civil Appeal No.1038/2012, Civil Appeal No. 11332/2011, Civil Appeal No.11442/2011, Civil Appeal No.11407/2011, Civil Appeal No.4559/2012, Civil Appeal Nos.6096-6104/2012, Civil Appeal No.8661/2012, Civil Appeal No.______ of 2024, [SLP(C) No.34663/2013], Civil Appeal No.322/2013 Civil Appeal Nos.9328-9331/2010, Civil Appeal No.10281/2010, Civil Appeal Nos. 2800-2802/2011, Civil Appeal Nos. 2806-2808/2011, Civil Appeal No.2803/2011, Civil Appeal Nos.2804-2805/2011, Civil Appeal No.2980/2011, Civil Appeal No.2978/2011, Civil Appeal No.2979/2011, Civil Appeal No.2976/2011, Civil Appeal No.2977/2011, Civil Appeal No.4569/2011, Civil Appeal No.3732/2011, Civil Appeal No.5180/2011, Civil Appeal No.5183/2011, Civil Appeal No.3731/2011, Civil Appeal No.5182/2011, Civil Appeal No.7646/2011, Civil Appeal No.1210/2012, Civil Appeal No.8302/2010, Civil Appeal No.2982/2011, Civil Appeal No.2981/2011, Civil Appeal No.2921/2011, Civil Appeal No.3730/2011, Civil Appeal No.4688/2011, Civil Appeal No.4745/2011, Civil Appeal No.5258/2011, Civil Appeal No.8215/2013
Decided on : 08-08-2024
Important Points
The main legal point established in the judgment is that age relaxation and the award of bonus marks to project-employed applicants were found to be valid and non-discriminatory under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008.
Subject
Civil Law - Employment Law
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14
RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATI RAJ PRABODHAK SERVICE RULES: R.13(v)
RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATS RAJ ACT: S.102, S.89, S.89(2)(v), S.89(5), S.6(b)
RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATI RAJ PRABODHAK SERVICE RULES: R.13(v)
RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATS RAJ ACT: S.102, S.89, S.89(2)(v), S.89(5), S.6(b)
Headnote
age relaxation - teacher selection - Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 - 89(2)(v), 13(v), 25 - The court upheld the age relaxation provided to persons serving under educational projects as non-discriminatory and valid. It also found the award of bonus marks to project-employed applicants to be valid and not ultra vires the Rules.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the challenge to the selection of candidates for the post of 'Prabodhak' (teacher) in Rajasthan, governed by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008. The appellants, teachers in recognized educational institutions, contested the selection process, alleging discrimination in age relaxation and the award of bonus marks.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the age relaxation for persons serving under educational projects to be non-discriminatory and valid, as it was based on a valid classification and had a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. It also upheld the award of bonus marks to project-employed applicants, as it was in line with the nature of the work of 'Prabodhak' and did not supplant the statutory rules.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of age relaxation and the award of bonus marks to project-employed applicants under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the age relaxation and award of bonus marks were valid and not discriminatory, as they were based on a valid classification and had a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. It also emphasized that the award of bonus marks did not supplant the statutory rules and was in line with the nature of the work of 'Prabodhak'.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the age relaxation and the award of bonus marks, and found no illegality in the selection process.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Validity of age relaxation for project employees under Article 14 — Legality of awarding differential bonus marks for project experience versus other teaching experience. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
3. Age relaxation and bonus marks for project experience are based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the objective of universalizing elementary education. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 39 , 40 )
4. Policy decisions on age limits and experience weightage are valid if based on intelligible differentia having a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. (Para 25 , 33 )
5. Appeals dismissed. (Para 41 )
6. Is age relaxation for specific categories of employees in government projects discriminatory under Article 14?
No, provided there is a valid classification based on intelligible differentia and a rational nexus to the object of the rules. Experience in remote areas serving disadvantaged communities justifies such relaxation as a policy decision. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 )
7. Can executive guidelines provide differential bonus marks for specific experience if the main rules are silent?
Yes, if the guidelines supplement the rules and the criteria for awarding marks have a reasonable nexus with the nature of the post and the objective of the recruitment. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
8. Does the issuance of selection guidelines shortly before an advertisement constitute changing the rules of the game after the match has begun?
No, if the guidelines are issued before the advertisement and applied uniformly to all applicants, it does not constitute an illegal change in the selection process. (Para 39 )
JUDGMENT :
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. Leave granted in SLP (Civil) No. 34742 of 2013 and SLP (Civil) No. 34663 of 2013.
2. This batch of 47 appeals involves common questions of law. They arise from the judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The main appeal, namely, Civil Appeal 7906 of 2010 (Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Mahesh Chand Bareth’) arises out of a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 402 of 2009 dated 21.05.2010. The other matters arise out of the same batch as Mahesh Chand Bareth or out of the judgments relying on Mahesh Chand Bareth or based on the judgments which, in turn, relied on Mahesh Chand Bareth. By virtue of the said judgments, the appellants were denied relief. The appellants challenged the selection of candidates to the post of “Prabodhak” (teacher) by virtue of advertisement issued on 31.05.2008. Recruitment and other service conditions for the post of Prabodhak are governed by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’).
3. About 20060 vacancies were advertised and the vacancies came to be filled up soon thereafter. The grievance of the appellants is that their candidature should also be considered for the appointment on the post of ‘Prabodhak’, by adopting similar criteria in the grant of bonus marks for teaching experience as was done in the case of the applicants who had experience of working in Government educational projects. Their further grievance is that Rule 13(v) of the Rules insofar as it provides for age relaxation to those persons serving under educational projects is a provision which is unconstitutional and invalid.
Background facts:
4. A brief narration of the background facts is essential for appreciating the issues involved in this case. The Shiksha Karmi Project was a unique initiative launched in the State of Rajasthan in 1987 with assistance from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). The object was to seek to reach out to children in remote rural areas where the formal primary schools are either not in existence or dysfunctional. Local youth with some basic educational qualifications were identified, trained and provided continuous educational support to teach children in Shiksha Karmi Day Schools, Prehar Pathshalas (Schools of convenient timings) and Angan Pathshalas (Courtyard Schools).
5. The concept of Shiksha Karmi Project (as is clear to us from the document containing a study, placed on record by the appellants) indicates that the Shiksha Karmi Project rested on the assumption that barefoot teachers belonging to the local community, who enjoy local community support if intensively trained, can overcome lack of formal educational qualification.
6. They were selected through an established procedure laid out in the manuals and once the Gram Sabha voted on the creation of a Shiksha Karmi School, spot tests were held to identify Shiksha Karmis. The Shiksha Karmi Project had significant overlaps with the Lok Jumbish Project and the District Primary Education Programme (DPEP).
7. The Shiksha Karmi Project was fairly successful in reaching out to children from disadvantaged communities. A person serving in various educational projects possessed rich experience of teaching and motivating people for education in rural areas. The workers were engaged in the name of Shiksha Karmis to address the problem of teacher absenteeism, poor enrolment, high dropout trends and inadequate access to education. The workers were to get only a fixed honorarium. The projects were introduced to accelerate universalization of elementary education. After the passage of the 83rd Constitutional Amendment and the setting up of an elected Panchayat structure, the project worked in tandem with the elected representative memb
