1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the

2. By these writ petitions, filed by various categories of employees working in various capacities in the National Rural Health Mission (for short, 'NRHM'), with a prayer to declare the Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (for short, 'Rules of 1965') as illegal and arbitrary and as violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, as it does not extend the relaxation in upper age limit up o 45 years to the persons, employed in the NRHM, and confining the maximum age relaxation to the persons employed in NRHM up o the period, they have worked in NRHM, with the maximum age relaxation up o 5 years.

3. It is submitted that the NRHM is a State funded and State supervised Scheme. The petitioners were appointed on contract basis in pursuance to the advertisement, by a selection committee consisting of the State functionaries. They have rendered services as State Government employees, and thus, the discrimination, in providing age relaxation only to the extent, to which they have worked under the Scheme, subject to maximum of 5 years, is discriminatory as against the maximum age of 45 years allowed for the persons appointed in the affairs of the State Government, on substantive basis.

4. The advertisement was published on 10.07.2013 for appointment on the posts of Coordinator (Health) (56 posts), Computer Operator (39 posts), Coordinator (PCPNDT) (34 posts), Coordinator (Programme) (662 posts), Coordinator (I.E.C.) (34 posts), Clinical Record Assistant (4309 posts), Account Assistant (2412 posts), Block Asha Supervisor (249 posts and P.H.C. Asha Supervisor (1612 posts), in which the reservation was to be applied, in accordance with the Rules made by the State Government. We are concerned with Clause-7 of the Advertisement providing for the age limit, which was to be calculated with effect from 01.01.2014, up to which the maximum age was to be calculated. Clause-7(ii) provided that the minimum and maximum age limit for recruitment is 18 and 35 years respectively, with 3 years relaxation for all the categories of employees as after notification dated 23.09.2008, no recruitment was made. Clause-7(iii) provides for age relaxation for SC/ST and OBC categories, for which the maximum age relaxation for General Category candidates was 5 years, and for SC/ST, OBC(Woman) 10 years. For widows and dirvorcees, no age limit was fixed. Clause-7(iii) (c) provides for maximum age limit of 45 years, for those persons, who are engaged in the affairs of the State on substantive basis. Clause-7(iii) (e) provides a special provision for age relaxation, who were working on similar posts in any capacity on the posts included in Rule 10 of the Rules of 1965. For these persons including petitioners working on similar posts, age relaxation was provided for the period of experience with the maximum of 5 years.

5. Clause-8 of the advertisement provided for the bonus marks in accordance with Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 in a manner that those persons, who were doing similar work under the State Government, NRHM and Medicare Relief Society, were to be given 10 bonus marks for working for 1 year with maximum of 30 bonus marks. No bonus marks were to be awardable, if the candidate did not complete 365 days of work in any year.

6. It is submitted that whereas those persons, who have worked on the substantive basis, the maximum age limit is 45 years, for those who were discharging similar duties in the NRHM, the maximum age limit is 35 years plus 3 years for the delayed recruitment, and for the experience gained by them, subject to 5 years. The denial of relaxation to the extent of 45 years, as in the case of those persons, who were serving the affairs of the State on substantive basis, is without any object to be achieved. The discrimination is alleged to be arbitrary and in that invidious, those who had entered into contractual services under the NRHM on t