JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Since the controversy involved in the present writ petitions is similar, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.

3. For brevity, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16998/2022 “Jagdish Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” are being taken into consideration for deciding the controversy involved in these cases.

4. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent-Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department issued a Notification dated 20.09.2007 (Annex.1) for appointment on the post of Senior Technical and Gram Sahayak on contractual basis. The petitioner, being eligible, was appointed on the post of Gram Sahayak on the fixed remuneration of Rs.2,500/-p.m. He performed the work of Gram Sahayak for more than five years. In the year 2013, the respondents invited online applications for appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.). The last date for filling up the application form was 22.03.2013. Considering himself falling within the age limit as prescribed in Condition No.8 of the Advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of L.D.C. However, the respondents rejected the candidature of the petitioner being overage. Hence, the present writ petitions.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners were working on different posts in the respondent-Department on contract basis for a period of more than five years, thus, they are entitled for relaxation in the upper age limit for a period of five years as per Condition No.8 (xi) of the Advertisement and a further relaxation of three years as per the Advertisement on account of the fact that no recruitment process was conducted by the respondents preceding to the year 2013.

6. In nutshell, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per the conditions prescribed in the Advertisement, general relaxation of three years’ period in the upper age limit to all the persons, irrespective of the fact that whether a person belonging to a particular category or not, has been granted on account of the fact that no recruitment was conducted by the respondents in preceding three years of 2013. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that since the petitioners have performed the contractual engagement with the respondents on different posts for more than five years, therefore, they are entitled for five years’ relaxation in the age in addition to the three years’ period.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that relying upon the conditions of the Advertisement, a number of persons have been appointed who are similarly situated having the age more than the upper age limit prescribed in Rule 265 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1996’).

8. In support of their submissions, learned counsel have relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13347/2017 “Bheem Singh Udawat Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.” decided on 11.10.2022.

9. Learned counsel, therefore, pray that the present writ petitions may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to consider the cases of the petitioners giving them the relaxation in the upper age limit to the extent of eight years.

10. Per contra, Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned Additional Advocate General, while opposing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that recruitment and appointments in the respondent-Department are governed by Rule 265 of the Rules of 1996. He submits that as per the normal rule, the minimum age permissible for appointment in the State of Rajasthan is 18 years and maximum 35 years, however, under certain circumstances, the relaxation in the upper age limit has been provided by the State Government to different categories/classes. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that if there is any variation to the rules in the Advert