SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF RAJASTHAN PRABODHAK SERVICE RULES AS STATE ESTABLISHED INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA BEHIND FRAMING THE POLICY

The two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant and Hon’ble Justice K.V. Viswanathan, dismissed a batch of 47 appeals vide Order dated 08/07/2024 in the matter of Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 7906 of 2010. These Appeals challenged the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules 2008 (“Rules“) and its provisions for the appointment criterion and age relaxation provided to specific categories of candidates. The Appellants alleged that the requirements set in the Rules were arbitrary in nature and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (“Equality before Law.”) as it enabled grant of bonus marks for teaching experience only to experienced candidates applying for the Government’s educational projects and not to the Appellants, who did not have similar experience. However, the Apex Court dismissed such arguments and upheld the constitutional validity of the Rules and the Guidelines.

FACTS

The case is related to the Shiksha Karmi Project (“Scheme“) – a unique educational initiative in the State of Rajasthan aimed at reaching out to children in remote areas where formal educational institutes are not set up yet. The Scheme focused on providing local youth with primary education, skills and relevant training in Shiksha Karmi Day Schools, Prehar Pathshalas, and Angan Pathshalas. This Project, however, significantly overlaps with other education projects, such as the Lok Jumbish Project and the District Primary Education Programme (DPEP).

To facilitate smoother functioning of the Scheme, the Government amended Section 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (“Constitution of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service“) and added a new regular cadre in the name of ‘Prabodhak’ and ‘Senior Prabodhak’ (collectively called ‘Prabodhak‘ hereinafter).

Thereafter, the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules 2008 (“Rules“) came into force, and Rule 13(v) mandates that the minimum and maximum age for the role of Prabodhak must be 23 years and 35 years respectively. However, there are certain exceptions provided therein. Rule 13(v) states the following:

“(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.”

The Rules were further supplemented by Executive Guidelines (“Guidelines“), furnished on 27.05.2008, laying down several procedures. It provided for awarding bonus marks to candidates with previous experience in educational projects. About 20060 vacancies were advertised on 31.05.2008 and filled up soon thereafter.

In the present Appeal, the Appellants were specifically aggrieved with the age relaxation provided under Rule 13(v) and the awarding of bonus marks under the Guidelines. They contended that their candidature should also be considered for the post of Prabodhak and similar criteria should be adopted in the grant of bonus marks for teaching experience, as was done for other applicants who had work experience in Government educational projects.

The State contended that there was a historical background to the alleged provisions. The persons who had worked in the aforesaid educational projects had valuable experience in remote areas through direct interactions and connections with children. The State contended that the role of Prabodhak was to encourage more children to attend schools, which had a reasonable nexus between the experience gained by applicants in Government educational projects and the concept of the newly framed position of Prabodhak. Therefore, having work experience as a criterion for the said role was not arbitrary.

Insofar as the age relaxation was concerned, the State argued that it was meant for applicants who worked in related educational projects after joining within the age limit but have now become over-age. The purpose behind this provision, as per the State, was to prevent ousting candidates with valuable experience in similar projects merely because of their age. Additionally, the State argued that the procedure and criteria for such selection is a policy decision and can be legally described.

ISSUES

In the present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had to consider the following two questions:

Was Rule 13(v) contrary and discriminatory as per Article 14 of the Constitution of India, up to the extent that it provides age relaxation to persons serving under other educational projects?

Is awarding bonus marks to the project-employed applicants discriminatory and against the Rules? Further, 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?

JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS

1) Age Relaxation was not arbitrary.

Concerning the first question, the Hon’ble Court considered both sides’ arguments and observed that the State had made a valid classification in the present case. The Applicants’ work experience mattered significantly in this case as the Scheme aims to resolve the issue of absentee teachers in remote areas, creating a lack of education. The Prabodhak’s job was precisely what the para teachers did in other projects. Therefore, if the Government felt that the experience gained by them should not be lost and, in that regard, granted them age relaxation, provided they fulfilled 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. Thus, the Court held that the age relaxation provided in Rule 13(v) is not arbitrary or unreasonable.

2) Courts should not interfere in policy decisions.

Regarding the second question, the Hon’ble Court observed that this issue as well like age relaxation, was a policy decision. The Hon’ble Court referred to its precedents and reiterated that in matters of policy, Courts should be slow in interfering unless the policy is found to be palpably discriminatory and arbitrary. It further observed that if the State can provide its rationale or the ‘intelligible differentia’ behind the framing of the policy, the Courts must further refrain from interfering.

3) Non-publication of Guidelines in the public domain did not cause prejudice.

The Appellants argued that the Guidelines was not in the public domain – but this argument was not presented before the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (“Division Bench”). Irrespective of that, the Hon’ble Apex Court found no merit in this argument. It was held that the impugned Guidelines was issued before the vacancy advertisement and applied uniformly and across the board to all the applicants.

However, even if it was to be assumed that the Guidelines was not in the public domain, it had not caused any prejudice to the applicants. The methods of recruitment were approved by both the recruiting authority and the selection committee. The Appellants were given the chance to challenge the legitimacy of the prescription for awarding bonus marks, allowing them to voice their concerns. They failed at the procedure. This failure cannot become grounds for invalidating the Guidelines in the present case.

4) Awarding bonus marks was not illegal.

The Hon’ble Court found no illegality in awarding bonus marks for applicants with previous experience in educational projects. Rule 13(v) recognises that project-employed candidates have unique experiences that should not be overlooked. Because of the intelligible differentia established by the State, the Hon’ble Court found no illegality in awarding bonus marks.

CONCLUSION

Thus, the argument of the Appellants that the Guidelines that enabled grant of bonus marks for teaching experience to experienced candidates applying for the educational project in the State of Rajasthan viz Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala /Shiksha Karmi Board /Lok Jumbish Pariyojana /Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan /District Primary Education Programme, as opposed to the Appellants, who did not have experience in such educational programmes and thus, were not considered for bonus marks, amounts to inequal treatment and more so, unconstitutional as such Guidelines were not published in the public domain, was not upheld by the Supreme Court. The Apex Court observed that such arguments were not raised before the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench.

Further, on merits as well, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed such argument, noting that the Guidelines were issued before the vacancy advertisement and was made uniformly applicable to all the applicants.

The Apex Court did not find any merit in the claim that the non-publication of the Guidelines caused prejudice to any of the applicants, as the methods of recruitment had been approved by the recruiting authority and selection committee, and the Appellants had the opportunity to challenge the prescription for awarding bonus marks before such Authorities, but they failed. Thus, the argument about the availability of Guidelines in public domain did not influence the validity of the Guidelines or the overall decision of the Government to set appointment criterion and provide age relaxation to specific categories of candidates.

 

Himangi Nagar

5^th year

Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

Intern

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services