MAHESH CHAND BARETH & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

                  [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 Sub-
           section (2) Shall be made by additional Chief Executive
           Office-cum-District Education officer (Elementary-
           Education) 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.     Name of     Method of     Post from   Qualifications   Qualification       Remarks
No.    Post        Recruitment   which       and              and
                   with          promotion   experience       experience
                   percentage    is to be    for Promotion    for direct
                                 made                         Recruitment

2      Prabodhak   100% by           -             -          Senior
       (4500-      Direct                                     Secondary
       7000)       Recruitment                                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