SC Upholds Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rule Providing Age Relaxation To Those Serving In Educational Projects

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 13(v) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008, which provided age relaxation for those serving in educational projects.

In that context, the Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan observed 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."

This batch of 47 appeals involved common questions of law arising from judgments by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench. The main appeal, Civil Appeal 7906 of 2010 (Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), challenged the selection process for the post of "Prabodhak" (teacher), as advertised on 31.05.2008, under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008.

The appellants argued that their candidature should be considered using similar criteria for bonus marks for teaching experience as those with experience in Government educational projects. They also challenged Rule 13(v) of the Rules, which provided age relaxation for those serving in educational projects, claiming it was unconstitutional and invalid.

The Shiksha Karmi Project, launched in Rajasthan in 1987 with assistance from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), aimed to educate children in remote rural areas with dysfunctional or nonexistent formal primary schools. Local youth with basic educational qualifications were trained to teach in various informal schools. The project was based on the idea that community-supported, locally trained teachers could overcome the lack of formal qualifications. Shiksha Karmis were selected through established procedures, including community votes and spot tests. The project overlapped with the Lok Jumbish Project and the District Primary Education Programme (DPEP).

The Shiksha Karmi Project successfully reached disadvantaged communities, addressing issues like teacher absenteeism, low enrollment, high dropout rates, and inadequate access to education. Shiksha Karmis received fixed honorariums and contributed significantly to the universalization of elementary education. After the 83rd Constitutional Amendment and the establishment of elected Panchayats, the project worked alongside elected Panchayat members.

The High Court found that the provisions, including subclause (v), were not arbitrary or discriminatory. The historical background leading to the enactment of the Rules justified granting age relaxation to those serving under the educational projects, provided they were within the age limit when initially engaged. As stated in the counter affidavit of the State, the projects were designed to address absentee teachers in remote areas, severely affecting rural children's education. Para teachers, working under challenging conditions and receiving only an honorarium, significantly uplifted the elementary education program in the State by motivating children to attend school. This background led to the creation of the 'Prabodhak' and Senior 'Prabodhak' grades and the enactment of separate rules.

The Rules allowed applicants with essential qualifications and teaching experience in recognized educational institutions, including those from educational projects. However, the Court held that applicants with project experience formed a valid, separate class based on intelligible differentia. This classification was rationally related to the Rules' objective. The para teachers' experience was directly relevant to the 'Prabodhak' role, and the Government's decision to grant age relaxation to retain their experience was justified, provided they met the initial age limit condition.

The Court further held that the award of bonus marks was not arbitrary or discriminatory. The guidelines for bonus marks were issued before the advertisement and specified that, out of the maximum 25 marks for experience, ordinarily 2 marks were given per year with a cap of 10 marks. However, employees receiving honorarium under State Government projects were given 5 marks for each academic session, up to a maximum of 25 marks. This differentiation was justified by the significant role these projects played in the state's educational system.

The application form specifically asked for details of experience, employer, institution, post, and period of employment, thus transparently accounting for the bonus marks awarded. The Court observed that the same justification for age relaxation applied to the grant of excess bonus marks, emphasizing that the post of ‘Prabodhak’ was created to leverage the benefits of these projects. The guidelines, being issued before the advertisement, were not hidden and were applied uniformly across all applicants, causing no prejudice.

The Court noted that the validity of Rule 13(v), which was upheld, indicated that project experience was valued higher because it was in line with the nature of Prabodhak's work. Under Rule 25, the selection committee was to prepare a list of suitable candidates, reinforcing the transparency and fairness of the selection process.

It was noted that the argument that the guidelines were not in the public domain was not previously raised and, even if considered, did not hold merit. The guidelines were uniformly applied, and the selection process was fair and transparent. The Court concluded, "We cannot jettison the guideline on the alleged ground that it was not in public domain."

Addressing the argument about changing the rules after the process started, the Court found it baseless, as the guidelines were issued before the advertisement. The Court stated, "There is no merit in the argument feebly advanced that the rules of the game had been changed after the match had begun."

Cause Title: Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment