[2024] 7 S.C.R. 196 : 2024 INSC 466
Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr.
v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 7906 of 2010)
08 July 2024
[Surya Kant and K. V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Is Rule 13(v) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service
Rules, 2008 , insofar as it provides age relaxation to the persons
serving under educational projects discriminatory and contrary to
Article 14 of the Constitution of India; Was the award of bonus
marks to the project employed applicants discriminatory and ultra
vires the Rules; Were the guidelines sanctioning the award of bonus
marks on a differential basis for applicants with project experience
and other applicants invalid for any other reason.
Headnotes†
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 –
r.13(v) – Age relaxation – Selection to the post of Prabodhak
(Teacher) – Constitution of India – Article 14 – r.13(v), if
discriminatory and contrary to Article 14:
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
* Author
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 197
Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
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]
Case Law Cited
Union of India & Ors v. Shivbachan Rai (2001) 9 SCC 356; Srinivas
K. Gouda v. Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences and Others
[2021] 6 SCR 1144 : (2022) 1 SCC 49 – relied on.
Satya Dev Bhagaur & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(2022) 5 SCC 314 – held applicable.
Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors. [2011] 11 SCR
635 : (2011) 12 SCC 85; State of Maharashtra vs. Raj Kumar
(1982) 3 SCC 313; Kailash Chand Sharma vs State of Rajasthan
& Ors. [2002] Supp. 1 SCR 317 : (2002) 6 SCC 562; Official
Liquidator vs. Dayanand & Ors. [2008] 15 SCR 331 : (2008) 10
198 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
SCC 1; State of Rajasthan vs. Archana (2017) 11 SCC 421; Manoj
Kumar Acharya vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Civil Appeal 12335
of 2016 dated 18.01.2022) – held inapplicable.
List of Acts
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008;
Constitution of India; Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
List of Keywords
Rule 13(v) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service
Rules, 2008; Service Rules; Prabodhak; Senior Prabodhak;
Teachers; Advertisement; Recruitment; Service conditions;
Age relaxation not discriminatory and contrary to Article 14;
Age relaxation to persons serving under educational projects;
Educational projects; Fixing of minimum and maximum age
requirement; Within the age limit at the time of initial appointment;
Direct recruitment; Policy decision; Project employed applicants;
Bonus marks; Bonus marks to project employed applicants;
Bonus marks for teaching experience; Far flung areas; Children
of the far-flung areas; Encouraging/motivating children to attend
schools; Absentee teachers; Education of rural children; Para
teachers; Difficult circumstances; Honorarium; Dropouts; Drop
out of students; Dropouts from schools; Elementary education
programme; Separate class; Valid classification; Valid classification
based on intelligible differentia; Intelligible differentia; Project
experience; Guidelines sanctioning the award of bonus marks
on differential basis; Lack of Project experience; Differentia
had a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved;
Executive instruction; Executive guidelines; Executive guidelines
supplemented the Rules and did not supplant them; Rajiv Gandhi
Pathshala; Shiksha Karmi Board; Lok Jumbish Pariyojana;
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan; District Primary Education Programme;
Guidelines in public domain; Rules of the game were not changed
after the match had begun; Error; Perversity; Mala fide.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7906 of 2010
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.05.2010 of the High court of
Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBSAW No. 402 of 2009
With
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 199
Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 7250 of 2024, Civil Appeal Nos. 8656-8668, 9618,
10709, 10712, 10711 and 10710 of 2011, Civil Appeal Nos. 6898, 1668
and 1038 of 2012, Civil Appeal Nos. 11332, 11442 and 11407 of 2011,
Civil Appeal Nos. 4559, 6096-6104 and 8661 of 2012, Civil Appeal Nos.
7251-7252 of 2024, Civil Appeal No. 322 of 2013, Civil Appeal Nos.
9328-9331 and 10281 of 2010, Civil Appeal Nos. 2800-2802, 2806-2808,
2803, 2804-2805, 2980, 2978, 2979, 2976, 2977, 4569, 3732, 5180,
5183, 3731, 5182 and 7646 of 2011, Civil Appeal No. 1210 of 2012,
Civil Appeal No. 8302 of 2010, Civil Appeal Nos. 2982, 2981, 2921,
3730, 4688, 4745 and 5258 of 2011 and Civil Appeal No. 8215 of 2013
Appearances for Parties
Sushil Kumar Jain, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Dr. Manish Singhvi,
Sr. Advs., Puneet Jain, Mrs. Christi Jain, Ms. Akriti Sharma, Mann
Arora, Ms. Lisha Bhati, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara,
Aishwary Mishra, Dhananjai Shekhwat, Dashrath Singh, Anirudh
Singh, Rakesh Dahiya, Aditya Dahiya, Kapil Dahiya, Satyavan
Kudalwal, Praveen Swarup, Sarad Kumar Singhania, P. K. Jain,
Ajay Choudhary, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Abhijeet Singh, Anjali
Saxena, Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Bankey Bihari Sharma, Ajit
Kumar Thakur, R N Verma, Sanjay Misra, Mukul Kumar, H. D.
Thanvi, Rishi Matoliya, Nikhil Kumar Singh, Raghuveer Pujari, Ms.
Sumati Sharma, Ms. Parul Shukla, Udayaditya Banerjee, Ms. Tanvi
Chuphal, Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Abhishek Kumar, Ms. Deeksha
Saggi, Rituparn Uniyal, B Tyagi, Nayyar Siddiqui, Ram Lal Roy,
Milind Kumar, Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Apurv Singhvi, Rohan Darade,
Nikilesh Ramachandran, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sandeep Kumar Jha, Ranbir
Singh Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Puran Mal Saini, Pati Raj Yadav, Ms.
Akansha Singh Yadav, Ankit Yadav, Dr. Nirmal Chopra, Ms. Pragati
Neekhra, Ram Nath, Ms. Kalpana Kumari, Dr. Sushil Balwada, R.K.
Rathore, Sandeep Singh Dingra, Amit Kumar Chawla, Ms. Tanishka
Grover, Niharika Dewivedi, Mahi Pal Singh, Ms. Manisha Chawla, T.R.
Meena, Vijay Rathore, Satpal Singh, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. Leave granted in SLP (Civil) No. 34742 of 2013 and SLP (Civil) No.
34663 of 2013.
200 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
2. This batch of 47 appeals involves common questions of law. They
arise from the judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court of
Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The main appeal,
namely, Civil Appeal 7906 of 2010 (Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr.
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Mahesh
Chand Bareth’) arises out of a judgment of the Division Bench of
the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur
in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 402 of 2009 dated 21.05.2010.
The other matters arise out of the same batch as Mahesh Chand
Bareth or out of the judgments relying on Mahesh Chand Bareth or
based on the judgments which, in turn, relied on Mahesh Chand
Bareth. By virtue of the said judgments, the appellants were denied
relief. The appellants challenged the selection of candidates to the
post of “Prabodhak” (teacher) by virtue of advertisement issued on
31.05.2008. Recruitment and other service conditions for the post of
Prabodhak are governed by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak
Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’).
3. About 20060 vacancies were advertised and the vacancies came to
be filled up soon thereafter. The grievance of the appellants is that
their candidature should also be considered for the appointment on
the post of ‘Prabodhak’, by adopting similar criteria in the grant of
bonus marks for teaching experience as was done in the case of the
applicants who had experience of working in Government educational
projects. Their further grievance is that Rule 13(v) of the Rules
insofar as it provides for age relaxation to those persons serving
under educational projects is a provision which is unconstitutional
and invalid.
Background facts:
4. A brief narration of the background facts is essential for appreciating
the issues involved in this case. The Shiksha Karmi Project was a
unique initiative launched in the State of Rajasthan in 1987 with
assistance from the Swedish International Development Cooperation
Agency (SIDA). The object was to seek to reach out to children
in remote rural areas where the formal primary schools are either
not in existence or dysfunctional. Local youth with some basic
educational qualifications were identified, trained and provided
continuous educational support to teach children in Shiksha Karmi
Day Schools, Prehar Pathshalas (Schools of convenient timings)
and Angan Pathshalas (Courtyard Schools).
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 201
Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
5. The concept of Shiksha Karmi Project (as is clear to us from the
document containing a study, placed on record by the appellants)
indicates that the Shiksha Karmi Project rested on the assumption
that barefoot teachers belonging to the local community, who enjoy
local community support if intensively trained, can overcome lack of
formal educational qualification.
6. They were selected through an established procedure laid out in the
manuals and once the Gram Sabha voted on the creation of a Shiksha
Karmi School, spot tests were held to identify Shiksha Karmis. The
Shiksha Karmi Project had significant overlaps with the Lok Jumbish
Project and the District Primary Education Programme (DPEP).
7. The Shiksha Karmi Project was fairly successful in reaching out
to children from disadvantaged communities. A person serving in
various educational projects possessed rich experience of teaching
and motivating people for education in rural areas. The workers were
engaged in the name of Shiksha Karmis to address the problem
of teacher absenteeism, poor enrolment, high dropout trends and
inadequate access to education. The workers were to get only
a fixed honorarium. The projects were introduced to accelerate
universalization of elementary education. After the passage of the
83rd Constitutional Amendment and the setting up of an elected
Panchayat structure, the project worked in tandem with the elected
representative members of the Panchayat.
Formulation of Rules:
8. When matters stood thus, a Cabinet note was prepared which set
out that to provide access to education to children living in far-flung
areas/difficult terrain/small villages (Hamlet) called Dhanis, a new
regular cadre in the name of Prabodhak and Senior Prabodhak be
created. As a first step, Section 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj
Act, 1994 was amended and in 89(2)(v) ‘Prabodhak’ and ‘Senior
Prabodhak’ were added as one of the grades. Section 89(2)(v), (5)
& 6B reads as under:
“89. Constitution of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti
and Zila Parishad Service.
(2) The Service may be divided into different categories,
such category being divided into different grades, and
shall consist of -
202 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(v) Prabodhak and Senior Prabodhak.
(5) All appointed to posts in the service shall be made-
(a) by direct recruitment; or
(b) By promotion ; or
(c) by transfer.
6B. Appointed on the posts specified in clause (v) of Subsection (2) Shall be made by additional Chief Executive
Office-cum-District Education officer (ElementaryEducation) of the District concerned in accordance with
the rules made in this behalf by the State Government,
from out of persons selected for the posts by the
recruitment committee constituted by the Government in
accordance with the rules made by the State Government
in this Behalf:
9. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102 of the Rajasthan
Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 were framed the Rajasthan Panchayati
Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008. Certain relevant clauses of
the Rules are extracted hereunder:
“2. Definitions.
In these rules unless the context otherwise requires,-
(c) “Direct recruitment” means recruitment made in
accordance with Part IV of these rules;
(k) “Teaching Experience” for the purpose of direct
recruitment includes the experience gained in supervisory
capacity in any recognized educational institution or
project;
6. Methods of Recruitment.
Recruitment to the service after the commencement of
the rules shall be made by the following methods:-
(a) by direct recruitment in accordance with Part IV of
these rules,
(b) by promotion in accordance with Part V of these rules.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 203
Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
13 Age.
A candidate for direct recruitment to a post enumerated
in the Schedule must have attained the age of 23 years
and must not have attained the age of 35 years on the
first day of January following the last date fixed for receipt
of applications:
Provided
(v) that the person serving under the educational project
in the State viz Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala/Shiksha Karmi
Board/Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/
District Primary Education Programme shall be deemed
to be within age limit, had they been within the age limit
when they were initially engaged even though they may
have crossed the age limit at the time of direct recruitment.
14. Academic and Professional Qualifications.
A candidate for direct recruitment to the posts specified
in the Schedule shall, in addition to such experience as
is required shall possess –
(i) the qualification and experience given in column 6
of the schedule, and
(ii) working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri Scripts
and knowledge of Rajasthani culture.
25. Recommendation of the Committee:-
The committee shall prepare a list of the candidates
whom, they consider suitable for appointment to the posts
concerned, arranged in the order of merit and forward the
same to the Appointing Authority:
Provided that the Committee may, to the extent of 50%
of the advertised vacancies, keep names of suitable
candidates on the reserve list. The names of such
candidates may, on requisition, be recommended in the
order of merit to the Appointing Authority within 6 months
from the date on which the Committee forwards the original
list to the Appointing Authority.
204 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Schedule
S.
No.
Name of
Post
Method of
Recruitment
with
percentage
Post from
which
promotion
is to be
made
Qualifications
and
experience
for Promotion
Qualification
and
experience
for direct
Recruitment
Remarks
2 Prabodhak
(4500-
7000)
100% by
Direct
Recruitment
- - Senior
Secondary
School
Certificate or
Intermediate or
its equivalent,
with Diploma
or certificate in
basic teachers
training of a
duration of
not less than
two years of
Diploma or
certificate in
elementary
teachers
training of a
duration of not
less than two
years.
OR
Bachelor of
Elementary
Education (B.
El. Ed.)
OR
Graduation
with Bachelor
of Education
(B. Ed.) or its
equivalent
AND
Must have at
least 5 years
continuous
teaching
experience
without any
break in any
recognized
educational
institution/
educational
project.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 205
Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Guidelines of 27.05.2008 & advertisement of 31.05.2008:
10. Before the advertisement was issued on 31.05.2008, appropriate
guidelines were formulated on 27.05.2008 for the purpose of
selection of Prabodhak. The guidelines dealt with various aspects
including award of bonus marks. Among the matters dealt with
apart from educational qualifications and emoluments were also
matters pertaining to disqualification if the applicant had more than
two children on or after 01.06.2002; disqualification with regard
to persons having more than one spouse and of persons who
had obtained dowry during their weddings. The guidelines also
dealt with the requirements with regard to community certificate;
reservation of 30% for women of which 5% was to be for widows;
requirements of age limit and relaxation. One of the clauses
provided as under :
“Selection Process: -
Selection will be done entirely through interview for which
a total of 100 marks have been allotted.
The classification of these numbers is as follows: -
General Knowledge – maximum 40 marks
Personality – maximum 35 marks
Experience - maximum 25 marks
A maximum of 10 marks will be given according to 2 marks
per year for a maximum of 5 years of teaching/supervision
experience. If the experience is for the employee receiving
honorarium under the projects run by the state government,
then he will be given 5 marks for each academic session,
maximum 25 marks.”
11. Thereafter, on 31.05.2008, advertisement for district-wise recruitment
for the post of Prabodhak was issued and selection came to be
made. The appellants, who are teachers in recognized educational
institutions filed writ petitions aggrieved by the award of excess
bonus marks for the candidate with project experience. In some
writ petitions, the age relaxation granted to the project employed
applicants were also challenged.
206 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Contentions of Appellants:
12. The appellants contend that Rule 13 (v) of the Rules providing age
relaxation only to a few categories of teachers of certain government
projects and denial of the same to other similarly situated teachers is
discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Insofar as the award of bonus marks is concerned, learned counsels
relying on Rule 2(k) which deals with teaching experience, point
out that granting additional marks to para teachers having teaching
experience from government projects is ultra vires the Rules.
13. Learned counsels also contend that the advertisement of 31.05.2008
did not sanction the grant of bonus marks and the administrative
guidelines dated 27.05.2008 were not brought in public domain. It
was argued that the rules of the game have been changed after
the match has begun. It was contended that if the intention of the
legislature was to create the said post only for para teachers working
in project, the same would not have been offered to private and other
teachers at all. Learned counsels further contend that the Rules do
not provide for grant of any bonus marks. Learned counsels for the
appellants argued that the effect of awarding extra bonus marks for
project experience has the effect of an indirect absorption of all the
project appointees and this, according to learned counsels, was
contrary to the Rules. Learned counsels for the appellants relied
on the judgment in Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan &
Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 85 to argue that the selection process should
be strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure.
Learned counsels also cited State of Maharashtra vs. Raj Kumar,
(1982) 3 SCC 313.
Contentions of the State:
14. The State contended that there was a historical background to the
introduction of the Rules; that there was a laudable objective of
achieving the universalization of elementary education and such
educational projects initiatives had led to significant increase in
literacy rate in Rajasthan from 38% to 66% between 1991 to 2011;
that persons who had worked in the aforesaid educational projects
were having valuable experience working in far flung areas and had
direct interaction and connection with children. That the projects
were started to mitigate the absenteeism of teachers in the rural
areas especially in small villages. Added to this, there were dropouts
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 207
Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
from schools and to tackle all these several initiatives in the form of
educational projects were introduced.
15. According to the State, ‘Prabodhak’ was to facilitate and encourage
children to attend schools. The State contended that as part of the
selection process guidelines for the purpose of giving marks for
experience can always be legally prescribed. All the Prabodhaks who
were recruited possessed the minimum educational qualification and
according to the State that was clear from the advertisement, which
contained a specific clause with regard to the minimum qualification of
Basic School Teaching Certificate (BSTC) for primary and Bachelor of
Education (B.Ed) for imparting education for middle school students.
16. The State contended that the experience gained in the projects has
reasonable nexus with the concept of Prabodhak for which the newly
framed Prabodhak Rules and Cadre were created. Insofar as age
relaxation was concerned, it was contended by the State that it was
meant for persons who worked in the projects after joining within the
age limit but have now become over age. According to the State,
the idea was not to oust from consideration these persons who had
worked in the education projects for significant number of years. Hence
age relaxation was provided to them. According to the State, there
was nothing discriminatory about it. In support of the submission,
learned counsels for the State relied on Satya Dev Bhagaur & Ors.
Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2022) 5 SCC 314.
17. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench declined relief to
the appellants. Aggrieved the appellants are before us. We have
also heard the learned counsels for the parties proposing to implead
or intervene.
Questions for consideration:
18. The two questions that arise for consideration are:
i. Is Rule 13(v) of the Rules, insofar as it provides age relaxation
to the persons serving under educational projects discriminatory
and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
ii. Is the award of bonus marks to the project employed applicants
discriminatory and ultra vires the Rules? Are the guidelines
of 27.05.2008 sanctioning the award of bonus marks on a
differential basis for applicants with project experience and
other applicants invalid for any other reason?
208 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Question No. 1:
19. To answer this, a full look at Rule 13 is essential:
“13. Age.
A candidate for direct recruitment to a post enumerated
in the Schedule must have attained the age of 23 years
and must not have attained the age of 35 years on the
first day of January following the last date fixed for receipt
of applications :
Provided -
(i) that the upper age limit mentioned above, shall be
relaxed by 5 years in the case of male candidates
belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and the Other Backward classes.
(ii) that the upper age limit mentioned above shall be
relaxed by 5 years in case of women candidates
belonging to General Category.
(iii) that the upper age limit mentioned above shall be
relaxed by 10 years in the case of women candidates
belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and the Other Backward classes.
(iv) that the upper age limit mentioned above shall be 50
years in the case of Ex-service personnel and the
reservists, namely the Defence Service Personnel
who were transferred to the reserve.
(v) that the person serving under the educational project
in the State viz Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala/Shiksha
Karmi Board/Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan/District Primary Education Programme shall
be deemed to be within age limit, had they been within
the age limit when they were initially engaged even
though they may have crossed the age limit at the
time of direct recruitment.
(vi) that the upper age limit mentioned above shall be
relaxed by a period equal to the service rendered
in the NCC in the case of Cadet instructors and if
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 209
Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
the resultant age does not exceed the prescribed
maximum age limit by more than three years, they
shall be deemed to be within the prescribed age limit.
(vii) that the Released Emergency Commissioned Officers
and Short Service Commissioned Officers after
release from the Army shall be deemed to be within
the age limit even though they have crossed the age
limit when they appear before the Committee had
they been eligible as such at the time of their joining
the Commission in the Army.
(viii) that there shall be no upper age limit in the case of
widows and divorced women.”
20. Fixing of minimum and maximum age requirement is a policy decision.
In this case, the said decision is engrafted in Rule 13. A careful
perusal of the Rule reveals that the minimum age required was 23
years and the maximum outer limit was 35 years. In the proviso
there are several categories to which relaxation has been granted.
Under clause (i) of the proviso, a relaxation of 5 years is granted
to male candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and the Other Backward classes. Under clause (ii) of the
proviso, the upper age limit is relaxed by 5 years in case of women
candidates belonging to General Category and under clause (iii) it is
relaxed by 10 years in the case of women candidates belonging to
the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward
classes. Under Clause (iv), the age relaxation is of 50 years in the
case of Ex-service Personnel and the reservists, namely the Defence
Service Personnel who were transferred to the reserve.
21. Thereafter, we have clause (v) which states that the person serving
under the educational project in the State, namely, Rajiv Gandhi
Pathshala/Shiksha Karmi Board/Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/Sarva
Shiksha Abhiyan/District Primary Education Programme shall be
deemed to be within age limit, had they been within the age limit
when they were initially engaged even though they may have crossed
the age limit at the time of direct recruitment. Thereafter, we have
clause (vi) which states that the upper age limit mentioned above
shall be relaxed by a period equal to the service rendered in the
NCC in the case of Cadet instructors and if the resultant age does
not exceed the prescribed maximum age limit by more than three
210 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
years, they shall be deemed to be within the prescribed age limit.
In clause (vii) the Released Emergency Commissioned Officers and
Short Service Commissioned Officers after release from the Army
shall be deemed to be within the age limit even though they have
crossed the age limit when they appear before the Committee had
they been eligible as such at the time of their joining the Commission
in the Army. So finally in clause (viii) it is provided that there shall
be no upper age limit in the case of widows and divorced women.
22. The challenge of the appellants is only to sub clause (v). We find
that the provisions generally including sub clause (v) are not arbitrary
or discriminatory. Insofar as the clause (v) is concerned, as has
been mentioned hereinabove, 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.
23. As the counter affidavit of the State indicates that 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, as they were called, 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. The para teachers
motivated the children to come to school. It was in this background
that the grade of ‘Prabodhak’ and Senior ‘Prabodhak’ were encadred
and separate rules enacted.
24. No doubt, under the Rules, opportunity to apply was also given to all
those who possess the essential qualifications and who had teaching
experience in any recognized educational institutions apart from the
educational projects. This, however, does not mean that those who
served in projects did not form a separate class. There was a valid
classification based on intelligible differentia which distinguished
applicants with project experience and those who lacked project
experience. Further the differentia had a rational relation to the
object sought to be achieved by the Rules. In fact, 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
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 211
Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
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.
25. Dealing with the similar challenge in Union of India & Ors v.
Shivbachan Rai, (2001) 9 SCC 356, this Court held that the
prescribing of any age limit for a given post, as also deciding the
extent to which any relaxation can be given to the said age limit
are essentially matters of policy. It was further held that it was open
for the Government while framing the rules to prescribe such age
limits or to prescribe the extent to which any relaxation can be given.
Applying the said principle to this case, we find that the relaxation
provided for in Rule 13(v) is not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Question No.2:
26. Insofar as the award of bonus marks is concerned, a careful perusal
of the guidelines indicates that it was issued before the advertisement
and all that it provided was out of the allotted maximum marks of
25 for the experience, ordinarily 2 marks were to be given for every
year with a cap of 10 marks. However, if the experience is for the
employee receiving honorarium under the projects run by the State
Government, then he was to be given 5 marks for each academic
session with the maximum of 25 marks. Even if part of the experience
was in a project to that extent extra marks were provided to all the
applicants.
27. In the application form, there was a specific column, namely, column
fourteen which asked about details of the experience. The form also
asked for the name of the employer and the address of the institution
employed. Thereafter, there was another column asking for the
post in which they were employed and the period during which the
emoluments were received.
28. Apart from this, the justification offered for defending the age relaxation
is also available for the grant of excess bonus marks. In fact, as is
clear from the background set out above, the creation of the post
of ‘Prabodhak’ and ‘Senior Prabodhak’ was to get the advantage of
the benefits that the projects gave to the State. At the same time,
opportunity was given to all, with the only difference being that by
an executive instruction additional marks were granted for project
212 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
experience. The executive guidelines only supplemented the Rules
and did not supplant them.
29. Moreover, intrinsically from Rule 13(v) the validity of which we have
upheld, evidence is available to show that the Rule recognized the
experience gathered from project work stood on a higher pedestal
because it was in tune with the nature of the work of Prabodhak.
Further, under Rule 25, the Committee was to prepare a list of
candidates whom they consider suitable for appointment.
30. In Srinivas K. Gouda v. Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences
and Others (2022) 1 SCC 49, a notification was issued inviting
applications for the post of Junior Lab Technician. Eligibility and
requirements were prescribed. At the time of selection, the Selection
Committee decided that out of the 15% marks for interview, 10% of
the marks were to be set apart for the length of work experience and/
or additional training in teaching hospitals of the medical college, with
special preference to those who had worked in teaching hospitals
of Government/autonomous medical colleges and the remaining
5% marks were to be assigned to the personality of the candidates
based on viva voice. In the minutes, it was set out as under:
“4. …. It was decided that in order to select the most
suitable candidates, proportionate weightage based on the
length of experience and/or additional training to the extent
of 10 marks be given to those candidates who had work
experience and/or additional training in medical college
teaching hospitals and especially those who had worked
in government/autonomous medical college teaching
hospitals. It was agreed that the type of work in these
institutions most closely resembled the working conditions
at Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli and hence
the candidates who had experience in such institutions
would be the most suitable. It was also decided to set
apart a maximum of 5 marks for the personality of the
candidate and his/her presentation and performance….”
(Emphasis supplied)
31. The appellant in that case was selected and the selection had
been set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court. The
appellant secured 9.5 marks in the experience category while the
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 213
Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
writ petitioner who had challenged his appointment had secured
one (1) mark under the component of experience. On appeal, the
appellant contended that the selection committee, an expert body,
was entitled to apportion marks, and that the appellant had experience
in Government/Autonomous medical institutions. The writ petitioner
had contended that no explanation was furnished for dividing the
marks and bifurcating the same. This Court while allowing the appeal
in para 19 held as under:
“19. It is in this background that we need to determine
whether the marks allotted to the appellant in the
category of experience and personality are arbitrary. The
appellant at the time of submitting the application had
a one year work experience in Bapuji Medical College,
Devanagere (a private institution) and three years of work
experience with the first respondent. On the other hand,
the respondent at the time of the application, had six
months’ experience of working under a doctor who was
undertaking private practice. Not only did the appellant have
more years of work experience, he had work experience
in a governmental institution. Hence, the marks awarded
to the third respondent and the appellant bore a nexus to
the yardstick determined by the Selection Committee. It
is not the case of the third respondent that the appellant
was given more marks for experience despite having less
work experience. On a comparison of the marks allotted
to both the candidates with reference to the yardstick
determined by the Selection Committee, no mala fides
could be imputed to the Selection Committee. Nor is
there an obvious or glaring error or perversity. The Court
does not sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection
Committee.”
32. In the present case too, we find no glaring error or perversity in the
criterion adopted on the peculiar facts of the present case. No mala
fide could also be attributed to the State and the Selection Committee.
33. Satya Dev Bhagaur (supra) was a case wherein the State of
Rajasthan had issued a notification providing that such of the
candidate who had worked under the Government, Chief Minister
BPL Life Saving Fund, NRHM Medicare Relief Society, AIDS Control
214 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Society, National TB Control Program, Jhalawar Hospital and
Medical College Society, Samekit Rog Nirgrani Pariyojna or State
Institute of Health Family Welfare would be entitled to bonus marks
as per the experience attained. It was provided that for one year of
experience, the bonus marks will be 10, for two years of experience
the bonus marks will be 20 and for three years of experience it will
be 30. This notification was challenged by certain persons who
had experience of working in NRHM Scheme on contract basis
in States other than Rajasthan. They sought a direction to accept
their experience certificate so as to entitle them to obtain the bonus
marks. While the Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions, the Division
Bench reversed the same and the aggrieved Writ Petitioners were
in Appeal. Examining the question whether bonus marks would
be available to employees of NRHM Scheme in other States, this
Court while repelling the contention held that in matters of policy,
Courts should be slow in interfering, unless the policy is found to
be palpably discriminatory and arbitrary. It was further held that the
court would not interfere with the policy decision when the State was
in a position to point out that there was an intelligible differentia in
the application of the policy and that such intelligible differentia had
a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. On the facts of that
case, the Court held as follows:
“20. It could thus clearly be seen that the Division Bench
in Jagdish Prasad [Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan,
2016 SCC OnLine Raj 646] after considering the record,
has come to the finding that the Government of Rajasthan
has conducted several training programmes for the persons
working with it on contractual basis, as well as under
different schemes. The training programmes mainly pertain
to the peculiar working pattern in the rural areas of the State
of Rajasthan including tribal and arid zones. The Division
Bench has further come to a finding that participation in
such a training is mandatory and non-joining of the same
would result in non-renewal of service contracts. It has been
held that persons having special knowledge in working
in the State of Rajasthan form a class different than the
persons not having such experience of working in the
State. It was found that the benefit extended by the State
policy was only that of giving a little more weightage on the
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 215
Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
basis of experience and all the candidates were required
to undergo the rigor of selection process. The Division
Bench has clearly held that the experienced candidates
in other States cannot be compared with the candidates
working in the State of Rajasthan, as every State has
its own problems and issues and the persons trained to
meet such circumstances, stand on a different pedestal.”
34. We find that the ratio laid down in the said judgment is applicable to
the facts of the present case also to uphold the action of the State.
35. The judgment of this Court in Raj Kumar (supra) cited by the learned
counsel for the appellants is clearly distinguishable. That case dealt
with the Rule which provided that any person who has passed the
SSC examination and is supposed to be a rural candidate was to
be given weightage by the Public Service Commission by awarding
10% marks in each subject for such a candidate. It was also provided
that the Viva Voce Board was to put relevant questions to judge
the suitability of the candidate for working in rural areas and to test
whether or not they had sufficient knowledge of rural problems. Rural
candidate was defined to mean a candidate who comes from the
rural area and who has passed SSC examination which is held from
a village or a town having only a ‘C’ type Municipality. The purported
object of the Rule was to take officers who had full knowledge of rural
life, its problems, aptitudes and working of the people in villages. This
Court held that the Rule did not fulfil or carry out the object sought
to be achieved since as the Rules stood any person who may not
have lived in a village at all can appear for SSC Examination from
a village and yet become eligible for selection. The Court found
that there was no nexus between the classification and the object
sought to be achieved. The Court also faulted the weightage marks
given by holding that since in the viva voce questions to judge the
suitability of the candidate for working in rural areas were anyway
being put, there was absolutely no occasion for giving weightage
which would convert demerit into merit and merit into demerit. On
the facts of that case, the Court found the rule of weightage to be
manifestly unreasonable and wholly arbitrary. The said case has no
application to the facts of the present case.
36. Equally the judgment in Kailash Chand Sharma vs State of
Rajasthan & Ors., (2002) 6 SCC 562 has also no application.
216 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
This Court in that case held that the award of bonus marks to the
residents of the district and residents of the rural areas of the district
amounts to impermissible discrimination. The Court found that there
was no rational basis for such preferential treatment on the material
placed before the Court. The Court found that the ostensible reasons
advanced by the State were non-existent or irrelevant, having no
nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It also found that no
criteria was set out for determining as to residents in rural areas.
The Court in Kailash Chand Sharma (supra) followed the judgment
in Raj Kumar (Supra).
37. The judgment in Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand & Ors. (2008)
10 SCC 1 cited by the appellants has no connection at all with the
issues raised in the present case. Yet another case cited by the
appellants is Bedanga Talukdar (supra). The appellants relied on
the said judgment to contend that there could be no relaxation in
the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement and even if
there was power of relaxation the same will have to be specifically
indicated in the advertisement. The case is wholly inapplicable. In
this case, before the advertisement was issued, the guidelines setting
out various aspects including the aspect of bonus marks were issued
and, as discussed earlier, no infirmity can be found with the same.
38. Similarly, the judgment in State of Rajasthan vs. Archana (2017)
11 SCC 421 and the judgment in Civil Appeal 12335 of 2016 dated
18.01.2022 in Manoj Kumar Acharya vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors., cited by the State have no application to the facts of the
present case.
39. The argument that the guideline was not in public domain was not
an argument canvassed either before the learned Single Judge or
before the Division Bench. In any event, the contention does not
impress us on the facts of the present case. The guideline setting
out the selection process was issued before the advertisement and
it was applied uniformly and across the board to all the applicants.
No prejudice has been caused to the applicants even assuming
that the guideline was not in the public domain. It was a procedure
adopted by the recruiting Authority and endorsed by the Selection
Committee. The appellants have had the opportunity to assail the
validity of the prescription of the award of bonus marks and as such
have had a fora to ventilate their grievance. They have failed in the
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 217
Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
process. Hence, we cannot jettison the guideline on the alleged
ground that it was not in public domain. Equally, since the guidelines
of 27.05.2008 preceded the advertisement of 31.05.2008, there is
no merit in the argument feebly advanced that the rules of the game
had been changed after the match had begun.
40. On the special facts of this case, considering the peculiarity that
obtained in the State of Rajasthan with regard to absentee teachers
and drop out of students and the introduction of the projects with para
legals to address the situation, we find no illegality in the prescription
of additional marks for those applicants who had experience of
working in projects, while recruiting Prabhodhaks. The statutory rules
itself in Rule 13(v) recognize that project employed applicants were
a class apart and the idea being that their experience should not
be wasted. In view of the above, we find no illegality in the award
of bonus marks.
41. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeals and all the
appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. All applications for
impleadment and intervention are closed.
Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
