Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioners against the post of Mahila Supervisor by setting aside appointment of lesser meritorious persons on the post of Mahila Supervisor on 13.5.2002.

2. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were already working as Aangan Bari Workers with the respondents and therefore they could not be considered age-barred. Besides, the petitioners were being female and were therefore entitled to relaxation of age of 5 years as been provided to them under relevant rules Reliance in this connection has been placed on Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Women and Child Development (State and Subordinate) Services Rules, 1998 and the judgment of co-ordinate bench of this Court rendered in the case titled as Smt. Usha Rani vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4469 of 2002) decided on 19.2.2003.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents however opposed the writ petition and submitted that while petitioner No. 1 was 43 years old at the time of selection, petitioners No. 2 and 3 were both 39 years old even if the benefit of first proviso to Rule 14 of the Rules of 1998 is extended, none of them qualify. As regards proviso (2) to Rule 14 of the Rules of 1998, it was contended that the said rule requires that the persons appointed temporarily to the post in the service shall be deemed to be within the age limit, had they been within the age limit when they were initially appointed even though they may have crossed the upper age limit when they appear finally before the Commission/Appointing Authority and shall be allowed upto two chances, had they been eligible as such at the time of their initial appointment. It was argued that the appointment on one post cannot be made basis for age relaxation for appointment on another post.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record, I find that the petitioners were admittedly of more than 38 years of age when they applied for appointment on the post of Mahila Supervisor and the appointments in question were made. Even if relaxation of 5 years in upper age is given to each one of them, they still do not come within the age limit. Rule 14 of the Rules of 1998 reads as under :

"14. Age.—A candidate for direct recruitment to a post included in the Schedule, must have attained the age of 21 years for State Service posts and 18 years for subordinate service posts and must not have attained the age of 33 years on the fixed day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications

Provided that :

(1) the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by 5 years in the case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women candidates.

(2) the person appointed temporarily to the post in the service shall be deemed to be within the age limit had they been within the age limit when they were initially appointed even though they may have crossed the upper age limit when they appear finally before the Commission/Appointing Authority and shall be allowed upto two chances had they been eligible as such at the time of their initial appointment. It was argued that the appointment on one post cannot be made basis for age relaxation for regular appointment on another post."

5. Perusal of the proviso (2) to Rules 1998 clearly shows that the said proviso intends to confer the age relaxation in upper age limit to such persons placed in service if they at the time initial temporary appointment were within the age limit even though they may have crossed the upper age limit when they appear finally before the Commission/Appointing Authority and thus they shall be allowed upto two chances, had they been eligible as such at the time of their initial appointment. Rule obviously comes to apply to the appointment on substantive post of a persons, who were initially appointed temporarily to the sa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document