Supreme Court Upholds Provision Of Age Relaxation To Shiksha Karmis In Recruitment To Post Of Prabodhak In Rajasthan
The Supreme Court upheld the age relaxation provided to Shiksha Karmis and other government educational project employed candidates for direct recruitment to the post of Prabodhak (teacher) under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008.A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan noted that educational projects were implemented to address the issue of...
The Supreme Court upheld the age relaxation provided to Shiksha Karmis and other government educational project employed candidates for direct recruitment to the post of Prabodhak (teacher) under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan noted that educational projects were implemented to address the issue of absentee teachers in remote areas, and para teachers played a crucial role in improving elementary education and motivating children to attend school.
The classification of these teachers as a separate group for age relaxation under Rule 13(v) is justified, and is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, the court held.
“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 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.”
The court dismissed a batch of 47 appeals challenging the selection of candidates having experience in government educational projects in the 2008 recruitment process for 20060 posts of Prabodhak in Rajasthan.
The Rajasthan government launched the Shiksha Karmi Project in 1987, with assistance from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). The project aimed to provide education in remote rural areas through local youth who, after basic training, taught children in various forms of schools. Its purpose was to address issues like teacher absenteeism, poor enrolment, high dropout rates, and inadequate access to education. The Shiksha Karmis were provided a fixed honorarium.
To provide access to education to children living in far-flung areas/difficult terrain/small villages called Dhanis, a new regular cadre named Prabodhak and Senior Prabodhak was created by amending the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
The Rules of 2008 were framed stipulating the qualifications, age limits, and recruitment processes for Prabodhaks and Senior Prabodhaks, including provisions for age relaxation. On May 27, 2008, guidelines were issued to provide bonus marks for candidates with teaching experience in government educational projects.
The appellants, teachers from recognized educational institutions, challenged the award of excess bonus marks to candidates with project experience in recruitment process arising out of an advertisement dated May 31, 2008. They also challenged the age relaxation.
The appellants argued that age relaxation for project employed candidates under Rule 13(v) was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. They further contended that the award of bonus marks for project experience was ultra vires the Rule 2(k) (definition of teaching experience) of the 2008 Rules.
Rule 13 sets the age criteria for candidates applying for certain posts, with a minimum age of 23 and a maximum age of 35, and includes various relaxations for specific categories such as SC/ST, OBC, women, ex-servicemen, and others.
Clause (v) of Rule 13 provides that individuals serving in state educational projects are considered within the age limit if they were within it at the time of their initial engagement, even if they have since exceeded the age limit at the time of direct recruitment.
The court held that age relaxation was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.
The court also upheld the guidelines that awarded bonus marks to candidates with experience in government educational projects. The guidelines supplement the Rules, not supplant them, and provided a reasonable basis for recognizing the valuable experience gained by teachers in challenging rural educational projects, the court opined.
“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” said the court.
The court highlighted that policies on age relaxation and bonus marks are within the domain of executive decisions and should not be interfered with unless palpably discriminatory or arbitrary.
The court concluded that both the age relaxation and the award of bonus marks had a justified and rational basis, aligning with the objectives of the Rules of 2008. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the recruitment process, as conducted, was upheld.
Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 7906 of 2010
Case Title – Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 442