Hon'ble SIRADHANA, J.—In these writ applications, petitioners have challenged the vires of Rule 2(g) of the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 2010'). Since the issue raised is identical in all the writ petitions, therefore, these petitions were heard together for the purpose of common adjudication in order to answer the question raised.

2. The essential facts for adjudication of the controversy as pleaded in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16285/2010 (Rajendra Prasad Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) are that the petitioners are confirmed employees of Chirawa Senior Secondary School, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, selected by the duly constituted Selection Committee, including a nominee of the Government, and are working against sanctioned non-aided posts. It is further stated that the petitioners have unblemished service record and have been drawing salary in accordance with the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1993'), framed under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1989”), which provides for similar service benefits as admissible to the Government employees.

3. The respondent-State issued notification dated 29.11.2010 promulgating the 'Rules of 2010', for the purpose of absorbing the employees of Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions of Government of Rajasthan, who are working on sanctioned aided posts in the Non-Government Educational Institutions on the date of issue of the Notification dated 29.11.2010.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the action of the respondent-State in providing an option for absorption in the government service, only to those employees of the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions working on aided sanctioned posts, ignoring the employees working on non-aided sanctioned posts of the Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions, even though their appointment was made by the very same Selection Committee(s), which included a government nominee; is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the mandate of the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The challenge has been made specifically to Rule 2(g) of the Rules of 2010, promulgated vide notification dated 29.11.2010, which reads thus:-

“2(g). “employee” means an employee working in a recognized non-government aided educational institution and who is working against aided and sanctioned post.”

5. In substance, the petitioners have questioned the legality, validity and correctness of Rule 2(g) of the Rules of 2010, since it results into formation of two different classes out of one homogeneous group of employees, working in the Non-Government Aided Educational Institution(s) and therefore, have prayed for the relief, as under:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire record relating to this case and after perusing the same may be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition, and:-

(i) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction Rule 2(g) of the Rules of 2010 discriminating between the employees working on aided and non-aided posts for the purpose of absorption in Government service notified vide notification dated 29.11.2010 may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and be quashed and set aside and all the confirm employees including the petitioners working on aided and non-aided posts in private recognized aided institutions be ordered to be considered for absorption under the Rules of 2010 with all consequential benefits.

(ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem think fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.

(iii) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document