ORDER :

Mr. Sandeep Mehta, J. - The present writ petitions have been filed challenging the notification 06.03.2013 issued by the Governor of Rajasthan in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India which amended the RAJASTHAN RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATI RAJ STATE AND SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES , 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1998').

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that by way of notification 06.03.2013, the minimum qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary, Development Officer and Assistant Program Officer has been amended from Higher Secondary School Examination to Graduation from a recognised university rendering the petitioners ineligible for promotion to the next higher post.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the time when petitioners were appointed on the post of Gram Sevak, they were governed by the unameded Rules of 1998 wherein they had an opportunity of being promoted to the next higher post on the basis of qualification of Higher Secondary School Examination. Thus, the petitioners' eligibility for promotion to the next higher post cannot be taken away by virtue of notification dated 06.03.2013 amending the Rules of 1998 causing undue hardship and inconvenience. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Chandan Banerjee v. Krishna Prosad Ghosh reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 773.

4. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ran Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. C.W. No.6132/2019), decided on 15.03.2022, held as under:-

"5. Prima facie, from the very tenor of averments made in the writ petition, it becomes clear that the petitioners are trying to dictate the manner in which the State should lay down the criterion for selection on a particular post. The post of Assistant Secretary, Zila Parishad bears a great deal of responsibility and as such, prescribing the bare minimum educational qualification of 'Graduation' for filling up the post by in-house promotion from amongst the employees already working in the department, cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjust in any manner whatsoever.

6. Education is never confined by boundaries of age or time. Thus, we are of the firm view that rather than raising a grouse about higher qualification required for promotion, the petitioners would be better advised to enhance their educational capacity and acquire the degree of Graduation. None of the arguments advanced by Shri Vyas, was sufficient to convince the Court that the amendment in Schedule-II whereby educational qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary, Zila Parishad has been prescribed as Graduation is arbitrary or unconstitutional in any manner."

5. Similarly, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Madan Singh Boda v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. C.W. No.19322/2018), decided on 04.01.2022, while examining a similar eventuality, held as under:-

"There is always a presumption of constitutionality of a statute. Reference in this respect can be made to the decision of the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa and others AIR 1974 SC 1. Such presumption attaches also to subordinate legislation. The wisdom of the rule making authority in introducing certain eligibility criteria particularly in relation to the educational qualification required, is ordinarily not within the judicial review of the Court. Unless such qualification is shown to be wholly arbitrary or suffering from mala fides, the Court would not interfere with such policy matter. What should be the educational qualification required for holding the post in the nature of Assistant Conservator of Forests, is ordinarily left to the rule making authority to judge. We also notice that as per the affidavit filed by the State Government, such prescription of eligibility criteria is also provided by th