JUDGMENT 1. - All these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order since the common question is involved in all of them relating to the age of teachers appointed in Panchayat Samitis/Zila Parishads. For the purpose of disposal of these cases the facts of the case of Fateh Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and another, S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 5965/94 shall be taken up. 2. An advertisement was issued for the post of Lecturers in School education. The petitioner was not called for interview. He was appointed as Teacher Gr. III in the Government school under Panchayat Samitis/Zila Parishads. Under rule 10 of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 under which the advertisement was issued the minimum age was 24 years and maximum age was 33 years. Under the provision to the said rule relaxation has been. given. Under the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 and Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971, the provision with regard to age is similar. Under with proviso to the aforesaid rule it is mentioned that notwithstanding anything contained contrary in the Rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State in substantive capacity, the upper age-limit shall be 40 years for direct recruitment to posts filled in by competitive examinations or in case of posts filled in through the Commission. The benefit is claimed under this proviso. 3. Learned Advocate General was also called to assist the court in the matter. The arguments of both sides have been heard. 4. Under the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 the establishment of Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads has been given. Section 89 provides that there shall be constituted for the State a service designated as the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service and under sub-section (2) of Section 89 besides various other services, primary school teachers have been included. Sub- section (9) provides that persons holding posts encadred in the.service shall also be eligible for appointment or promotion to posts in accordance with the rules made in that behalf by the State Government and subject to terms and conditions laid down in such rules, and the persons so appointed or promoted shall count the period of their holding posts in the service constituted under this section for the purposes of seniority and pension. Sub- section (10) provides that persons holding appointment in a State service shall also be eligible for appointment by transfer to a post encadred in the service constituted under this section in accordance with the rules made in this behalf by the State Government and on terms and conditions laid down in those rules. Sub-section (11) provides that every person holding a post encadred in the service constituted under this section shall be entitled to the payment of a pension by the State Government out of the consolidated fund of the State in accordance with the rules made by it in that behalf. From the perusal of the above section it is evident that the service which has been constituted under sub-section (1) and (2) is for the State and therefore it has to be seen whether it falls within the category of VIth proviso to rule 10 of the Rules of 1970 and Rules of 1971 `in connection with the affairs of the State'. 5. On behalf of the RPSC it is stated that the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1962 under rule 11-B provides age limit for the persons serving in connection with the affairs of panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads in substantive capacity for the posts in subordinate services as 40 years but the Educational Service Rules provide no such provision and therefore the relaxation of 40 years age is not applicable to the aforesaid Rules. 6. In Mathuradas Mohanlal Kedia and others v. S.D. Munshaw and others, AIR 1981 SC 53 while considering the question Panchayat Service constituted under the Act is civil service under State, it was observed by the Apex Court that - "..........the true test for determination of the question whether a person is holding a civil post or is a member of the civil service is the existence of a relationship of master and servant between the State and the person holding a post under it and that the existence of such relationship is dependent upon the right of the State to select and appoint the holder of the post, its right to suspend and dismiss him, its right to control the manner and method of his doing the work and the payment by it of his wage and remuneration. It further held that the relationship of master and servant may be established by the presence of all or some of the factors referred to above in conjunction with other circumstances." It was also held that merely because the panchayats are declared to be body corporate, it cannot be said that any of the persons working under them cannot be considered as members of a civil service under a State. In State of Gujarat and another v. Ramanlal Keshaval Soni and others, AIR 1984 SC 161 it was observed that - "Several factors may indicate the relationship of master and servant. None may be conclusive. On the other hand, no single factor may be considered absolutely essential. The presence of all or some of the factors, such as the right to select for appointment, the right to appoint, the right to terminate the employment the right to take other disciplinary action, the right to prescribe the conditions of service, the nature of the duties performed by the employee, the right to control the employee's manner and method of the work, the right to issue directions and the right to determine and the source from which wages or salary are paid and a host of such circumstances, may have to be considered to determine the existence of the relationship of master and servant." The Panchayat Service constituted under Section 203' of the Gujarat Panchayats Act was held as a civil service of the State and the members of the service as Government servants. In the case of Sri R.N.A. Britto v. Chief Executive Officer, JT 1995 (4) SC 582 , after taking into consideration various functions required by the State which were entrusted to the Panchayat and the properties vested in the Panchayats and the funds of the Panchayats which are that of the Government and those collected by way of tax or fee by exercising power of taxation vested in the Panchayat by the Government, it was observed that the Panchayats have to function under the ultimate control of the State Government. When it comes to the Secretaries of the Panchayats appointed under the Act their selection for appointment, their termination from service, their liability for transfer and all other conditions of their services are as provided for under the Rules made under the Act or other rules made under Art. 309 of the Constitution in respect of services for the State Government servant. This court in the case of Mehtab All Khan v. B.D.O. Panchayat Samiti Chaksu and others, 1981 WLN 523 has taken the interpretation that Panchayat service under the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Services Rules, 1959 is civil service in the State. 7. On behalf of the respondents reliance has been placed on the case of Thote Bhaskara Rao v. APPSC, 1987 Suppl. SCC 587 , wherein it was considered that there is no doubt that the expression `government service' mentioned in the proviso includes service either under the State Government or the Government of India and the person not serving directly the Union of India cannot take advantage of the proviso. 8. After going through the various decisions referred to above, it may be observed that the appointment under the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad Service Rules by itself cannot be considered to be a State Service though it is civil service. The Vith proviso to rule 10 of the Rules of 1970 and Rules of 1971 gives relaxation if an employee is working in connection with the affairs of the State. It was for the Government to keep the teachers in the State Service or that function could have been transferred to the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads. Imparting education is the affair of the State. Under Article 41 of the Constitution of India the State shall make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want. In these circumstances, without deciding other rights and the benefits which the teachers of these primary schools may or may not be entitled, I consider it proper to observe that the respondents were not justified in. not calling the teachers who were having age between 34 to 40 years. In these circumstances, without deciding other rights and the benefits which the teachers of these primary schools may or may not be entitled, I consider it proper to observe that the respondents were not justified in. not calling the teachers who were having age between 34 to 40 years. Rule 11-B of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Service (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1962 in 11th proviso specifically refers to the persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads in substantive capacity for the posts in subordinate service and therefore upper age limit of 40 years for direct recruitment shall be applicable to them. Besides the interpretation which has been taken I feel that even otherwise it was justified to take the above view because the teachers stand on a better, footing than other employees working in connection with affairs of the State. 9. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to declare the result of those persons who have already appeared in the examinations under the orders of this court and to entertain the applications in respect of those advertisements where the last date has not yet expired of such teachers whose age has not exceeded 40 years.Writ Petition Allowed. *******