HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16686/2017

1.

Shaitan Singh Rathore S/o Shri Udai Singh Rathore, B/c

Rajput, R/o Kapoordi, Tehsil Baytu District Barmer Raj.

2.

Durga Singh Rathore S/o Shri Madan Singh Rathore, R/o

Village Bittan, Tehsil Merta City, District- Nagaur Raj.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan Through Additional Chief Secretary,

Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department,

Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur Raj.

2.

The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3.

The District Education Officer Elementary Education,

Barmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Rohitash Singh Rathore

For Respondent(s)

:

Ms. Surbhi Bissa for Mr. K.K. Bissa

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

16/02/2022

The present petition has been filed with the prayer for

consideration of the candidature of the petitioners for the post of

Prabodhak. In the present petition, it has been stated that the

petitioners were initially appointed in the year 1999 and 2002

respectively on the post of para teachers. In the year 2008, the

applications were invited for the post of Prabodhak and as per the

conditions, the age limit for the in service para teachers was

relaxed to the extent that if the person was within the age limit on

the date of appointment as para teacher, he would be considered

within age limit for the post of Prabodhak. The said relaxation was

(2 of 4)

[CW-16686/2017]

granted in terms of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj

Prabodhak Services Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules

of 2008”).

The petitioners have prayed that at the time when they

entered into service as para teachers, there was no age limit

prescribed and therefore the same can now not be limited for the

purpose of recruitment as Prabhodak. Counsel submitted that a

similarly situated person Lehru Lal Jat has been granted

appointment and therefore, the present petitioners be also

granted the same relief.

Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed

on 22.02.2010 in the first round of litigation initiated by a bunch

of persons including him, wherein, it was directed that the

petitioners who are not found eligible because of any other reason

would be assigned and communicated the reason for the same

and if aggrieved, that person would be free to avail remedy under

law. Counsel argued that no reason for the rejection of petitioners’

candidature was ever communicated to them and therefore, they

did not prefer any petition earlier.

Counsel for the respondents argued that the case of the

petitioners would not be governed by any of the Rules as they

were more than 35 years of age on the date of their initial

appointment as para teachers. Admittedly, both the petitioners

were more than 35 years of age in the year 1999 and 2002

respectively, therefore, even if the application of Rule 13(v) of the

Act of 2008 is made, the same would be of no help to the

petitioners.

A perusal of the judgment dated 22.02.2010 passed in the

earlier round of litigation also makes it clear that there was no

(3 of 4)

[CW-16686/2017]

observation or direction for consideration of the petitioners. The

only direction was of communication of the rejection to the

concerned candidate. It is admitted on record that no

communication was ever forwarded to the petitioners but then it is

also relevant to note that after the passing of the judgment on

22.02.2010, the petitioners took no further steps for redressal of

their grievance, if there was any. It is only in the year 2017 that

the present writ petition has been filed and that too on the

premise that a similarly situated person has been granted the

relief in the year 2017.

The writ petition of the petitioners does not call for any

interference by this Court because of the follo