Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Held: Validity of r.13(v) is upheld – The relaxation provided for in r.13(v) is not arbitrary or unreasonable – Fixing of minimum and maximum age requirement is a policy decision – r.13 reveals that the minimum age required was 23 years and the maximum outer limit was 35 years – In the proviso there were several categories to which relaxation was granted – The challenge of the appellants is only to sub clause (v) – Insofar as the clause (v) is concerned, the historical background leading to the enactment of the Rules itself provides a justification for granting relaxation to the persons serving under the educational project, if they fulfil the condition that they were within the age limit when they were initially engaged – The projects were designed to deal with absentee teachers in the far flung areas which was causing a serious jeopardy to the education of the rural children – The para teachers worked under difficult circumstances – They had the advantage of interacting personally with the children of the far-flung areas – They only received an honorarium – The projects themselves played a large part in uplifting the elementary education programme in the State of Rajasthan – The para teachers motivated the children to come to school – It was in this background that the grade of ‘Prabodhak’ (teacher) and Senior ‘Prabodhak’ were encadred and separate rules enacted – Those who served in projects formed a separate class – There was a valid classification based on intelligible differentia which distinguished applicants with project experience and those who lacked project experience – The differentia had a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Rules – The job of a Prabodhak was exactly the job that the para teachers carried out in the projects and if the Government felt that the experience gained by them should not be lost and in that regard granted them age relaxation, provided they fulfil the condition of being within the age limit at the time of their initial appointment in the project, no fault can be found with the same – No error, perversity or mala fide in the criterion adopted on the peculiar facts of the present case – Also, there is no illegality in the prescription of additional marks for those applicants who had experience of working in projects, while recruiting Prabhodhaks – The statutory rules in r.13(v) recognize that project employed applicants were a class apart with the idea being that their experience should not be wasted Before the advertisement was issued, the guidelines setting out various aspects including the aspect of bonus marks were issued and no infirmity can be found with the same – Opportunity was given to all, with the only difference being that by an executive instruction additional marks were granted for project experience – The executive guidelines only supplemented the Rules and did not supplant them – No illegality in the award of bonus marks. [Paras 20, 22-25, 28, 29, 37]