1. - The petitioner who has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 4/85, vide its judgment dated 8.6.1987, has filed this writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of rule 14 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as the "1998 Rules") and order dated 5.7.1990 passed by the respondent No. 2 dismissing the application of the petitioner for releasing him on parole, to attend his ailing wife.

2. According to the petitioner, he has undergone about 3 years and six months of sentence including remission On 26-6-1990, he came to know that his wife Smt. Asha Devi is critically ill, therefore, on 28-6-90 he made a representation to the Inspector General (Prisons) to leave him on parole, so that he may attend his ailing wife. According to him this was an emergent situation, which warranted his release on parole. The petitioner has stated that vide order No. 2541 dated 5.7.90, the Inspector General (Prisons) has dismissed his application. This order has not been served upon him. However, he has stated that the rejection of his application has been brought about by invoking the provisions of rule 14 of 1958 Rules.

3. According to the petitioner under the rules of 1958 there is a comprehensive scheme for release of prisoners on parole. Rule 3 of 1958 Rules provides for the form which could be submitted for release on parole. The application is required to be forwarded by the Superintendent of Jail to the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate may either reject or forward it to the Committee. The Committee has a power to release a prisoner on parole. Rule 9 of 1958 Rules specifies the parole period of different durations. Rule 9(a) provides that in emergent cases, the Superintendent of Jail can grant parole upto a period of 7 days subject to confirmation by the Inspector General (Prison) and the Inspector General (Prison) is empowered to grant parole for a period not exceeding 15 days. Rule 10(a) provides parole during emergent situation. Rule 14 contains classes of prisoners who are not eligible for parole in certain cases.

4. A notice of this writ petition was given to the learned Advocate General, who has appeared and argued the case on behalf of the respondents.

5. Shri Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the decision of the respondent No. 2 contained in the order dated 5.7.90 rejecting the request of the petitioner for being released on parole is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified. Shri Chauhan has submitted that exclusion of cases under Rule 14 from the preview of Rule 10 (a) is arbitrary and discriminatory. He has submitted that this exclusion of the cases under rule 14 has no nexus or relation with the object of grant of parole in emergent cases and, therefore, the provision imposing an embargo against grant of parole in emergent cases is unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. Shri B.P. Agrawal, learned Advocate General on the other hand submitted that there is a justification for imposing more rigorous conditions for grant of parole in the cases falling under rule 14 of 1958 Rules. This has been done looking to the nature of offences for which a person is convicted and is sentenced to imprisonment.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy, we may reproduce rules 9, 10A and 14 of 1958 Rules :

Rule 9-"Parole period-A prisoner, who has completed with remission, if any, (one fourth) of his sentence and subject to good conduct in the Jail, may be released on parole for 20 days including days of journey to home and back, and for 30 days on 2nd parole provided his behaviour has been good during the 1st parole and for 40 days on third parole provided his behaviour has been good during the second parole. If during the third parole also the prisoner has behaved well and his