Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 39 (RAJ)

Priti Dixit v. State of Rajasthan

2009-01-07

K.S.RATHORE

body2009
Hon ble RATHORE, J.—Since in all these writ petitions the selection process as well as non-consideration of the petitioners on the post of Prabodhak is under challenge, therefore, the same are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner has applied for the post of Prabodhak pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.05.2008 issued by the respondents. As per the advertisement, the basic qualification required for recruitment on the post of Prabodhak is Senior Secondary and B.S.T.C. or B.Ed. or equivalent to it. Beside qualification, the candidate should have continuous 5 years teaching experience without any break from the recognised educational institute and the experience certificate should be countersigned by the concerned District Education Officer. 3. I have heard learned counsels appearing for the respective petitioners, learned AAG Mr. S.K. Gupta and carefully gone through the relevant provisions of law and the other material available on the record. 4. As per the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 (for short the Rules of 2008), the term “teaching experience” has been defined in Rule 2(k) of the Rules of 2008, which reads as under:- “2. Definitions.- In these rules unless the context otherwise requires,- (a)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (k) “Teaching Experience” for the purpose of direct recruitment includes the experience gained in supervisory capacity in any recognised educational institution of project; “Service” or “Experience” wherever prescribed in these rules as a condition for promotion from one Service to another or within the Service from one category to another or to senior posts, in the case of a person holding a lower post eligible for promotion to higher post shall include the period for which the person has continuously worked on such lower post after regular selection in accordance with rules promulgated. 5. In majority of the writ petitions, the candidature of the petitioners was not considered on account of lack of requisite teaching experience as required under Rule 2(k) of the Rules of 2008. 6. In the case of Smt. Vishnu Kanwar vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 5. In majority of the writ petitions, the candidature of the petitioners was not considered on account of lack of requisite teaching experience as required under Rule 2(k) of the Rules of 2008. 6. In the case of Smt. Vishnu Kanwar vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (SBCWP No. 8796/2008), the petitioners who were serving as Para Teachers faced the process of selection for appointment as Prabodhak under the Rules of 2008 and their names figures in select list, however, appointments to them were withheld because of interruption in continuous service or because of lacking teaching experience due to leaves availed by them. In all the petitions, the case of the petitioners was that whatever interruption in service exists i.e. because of undergoing training required for Para Teachers or because of availing leave due to unavoidable circumstances. In some of the cases, the leave may not be because of unavoidable circumstances, but was for a quite short period and i.e. sanctioned one. 7. In the aforesaid case of Smt. Vishnu Kanwar (supra), the co-ordinate Bench of the Jodhpur High Court has considered the ratio decided in the case of Shankar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and others (SBCWP No. 6766/2008, decided on 15.10.2008), wherein this Court has considered the issue relating to the consideration of the period of training undertaken by the persons appointed as Para Teacher as part of teaching experience and observed as under:- “Under the Rules of 2008 the term “teaching experience” is defines as follows:- 2(k) “Teaching Experience” for the purpose of direct recruitment includes the experience gained in supervisory capacity in any recognised educational institution of project.” The term “service” or “experience” is also defined under the Rules of 2008 in following terms:- 2(1)“Service” or “Experience” wherever prescribed in these rules as a condition for promotion from one Service to another or within the Service from one category to another or to senior posts, in the case of a person holding a lower post eligible for promotion to higher post shall include the period for which the person has continuously worked on such lower post after regular selection in accordance with rules promulgated. Note: Absence during service e.g. Training, leave and deputation etc., which are treated as “duty” under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 shall also be counted as service for computing experience or service required fro promotion;” Suffice it to mention here that the interpretation of term “experience” under Rule 2(1) relates to promotion from one service to another or within the service from one category to another or to Senior Posts in the case a person is holding lower post. For the purpose of promotion, the period of training is required to be taken into consideration as experience, however, the Rules are silent regarding consideration of training as experience for direct recruitment. The term “teaching experience” as interpreted under Rule 2(k), though not refers that what shall be the teaching experience, but that is quire broad. It refers inclusion of experience gained in supervisory capacity in any recognised education institution or project as teaching experience. Meaning thereby, the teaching experience includes the experience of teaching as well as the experience gained in supervisory capacity with a recognised institutions. A person undertaking training for holding a teaching post after selection to a post concerned then that certainly stands on a better pedestal for considering “teaching experience” than the experience gained in supervisory capacity. The period spent for training is already treated as part of experience under the Rules of 2008, for the purpose of promotion and, therefore, in totality of the facts and legal position as stated above, I do not find any just reason to deny the post selection training relating to a teaching post as a “teaching experience”. The petitioner in view of whatever said above is certainly having a “teaching experience” of more than five years on inclusion of the training relating to post of Para Teacher. He is, thus, entitled to be considered for appointment as Prabodhak.” 8. The petitioner in view of whatever said above is certainly having a “teaching experience” of more than five years on inclusion of the training relating to post of Para Teacher. He is, thus, entitled to be considered for appointment as Prabodhak.” 8. The co-ordinate Bench of the Jodhpur High Court in the aforesaid case of Smt. Vishnu Kanwar (supra), having considered the provisions of Rule 2 (k), the term “Teaching Experience” and Rule 2(1), the term “Service” or “Experience, of the Rules of 2008 and having gone through the judgment rendered in the case of Shankar Lal (supra), vide its judgment dated 21.11.2008 has held as under:- “In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Shankar Lal (supra), the period consumed in undergoing training or Para Teachers is required to be treated as part of teaching experience, therefore, the respondents must include the period consumed in undergoing training as teaching experience. Similarly, the leave availed because of unavoidable circumstances is also required to be taken into consideration as part of teaching experience and also that should not be treated as break in service as held by this Court in Beeram Ram Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan and others (SBCWP No. 6273/2008) decided on 15.10.2008, relevant portion of the judgment referred above reads as follows:- “The period of summer vacations cannot be treated as a break in service as during this period, the employee remains out of employment due to the circumstances beyond his control. As such, non-consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment as Prabodhak on the count that he is lacking experience is not just and proper.” As a matter of fact, the break in service is the period in which the relationship of master and servant does not survive due to some positive act, either by the employee or by the employer. The period of leave due to unavoidable circumstances or to say the circumstances beyond the control of the employee or the employer cannot be treated as break in service. Similarly if the leave is sanctioned one, then that too maintains the relationship of master and servant. The period of availing sanctioned leave, thus, cannot be excluded from the term of continuous service. In view of whatever said above, all these petitions for writ are allowed. Similarly if the leave is sanctioned one, then that too maintains the relationship of master and servant. The period of availing sanctioned leave, thus, cannot be excluded from the term of continuous service. In view of whatever said above, all these petitions for writ are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the period consumed by the petitioner s in undergoing training necessary for appointment as Prabodhak, the period of leave sanctioned or the leave availed for the reasons beyond control as part of teaching experience acquired. The period aforesaid is also not require to be considered as break in service. As such, the respondents should act expeditiously to give effect to the select list relating to the petitioners and also relating to the persons similarly situated, as far as possible within a period of one and half month from today by giving appointment to them, if they are otherwise eligible. It shall be open for the respondents to demand original documents and other relevant facts from the petitioners to get satisfied about their claim for the period relating to teaching experience and leave in question.” 9. In view of the above discussions, the petitioners who are appointed as Para Teacher are eligible for the post of Prabodhak pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.05.2008 under the Rules of 2008 considering the training as part of experience. 10. If there was break on account of medical leave/maternity leave which was duly sanctioned, will not dis-entitle from participating in the process of selection for the post of Prabodhak merely on the ground of break in experience due to medical leave and are eligible for appointment on the post of Prabodhak if they complete the requisite teaching experience including the break on account of medical leave/maternity leave as held by this Court in the case of Anil Upadhaya vs. State & (2) Ors. (SBCWP No. 8809/2008), decided on 01.09.2008. 11. Similarly, period of summer vacation cannot be treated as a break in service as during this period the employee remains out of employment due to the circumstances beyond his control. As such, non-consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment as Prabodhak on the count that he is lacking experience is not just and proper and for the purpose of calculating the requisite experience, the period of summer vacation be counted in teaching experience. 12. As such, non-consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment as Prabodhak on the count that he is lacking experience is not just and proper and for the purpose of calculating the requisite experience, the period of summer vacation be counted in teaching experience. 12. Similar controversy has already been resolved by the co-ordinate Bench of the Jodhpur High Court vide judgment dated 15.10.2008 rendered in the case of Beeram Ram Choudhary vs. State & Ors. (SBCWP No. 6273/2008). 13. In some of the writ petitions, the petitioners are not having requisite experience ignoring the period of summer vacation and medical leave. As per the provisions of law, since they are not having required statutory experience i.e. of five years, therefore, such candidates are not entitled for appointment on the post of Prabodhak. 14. Similar controversy has already been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of the Jodhpur High Court vide judgment dated 04.08.2008 rendered in the case of Smt. Tripti Shrimali vs. State & Others (SBCWP No. 3902/2008), wherein the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under:- “The candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment to the post of Prabodhak has not been considered being lacking the required statutory experience i.e. of five years. Admittedly, as per the Certificate Annexure 1 dated 15.04.2006, the petitioner worked with St. Austin s Secondary School from 09.07.2001 to 10.03.2006 as a Teacher. The petitioner, therefore, does not have the required experience. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that a relaxation could have been granted by the appointing authority as per Rule 40 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008. Whether such relaxation is desirable in the case of the petitioner is to be decided by the appointing authority as per the Rules and not by this Court. As such, the petition for writ is having no merit, same, therefore, is dismissed.” 15. In few of the writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for relaxation in experience as per Rule 40 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008. Whether such relaxation is desirable in the case of the petitioners is to be decided by the appointing authority as per the Rules and not by this Court. 16. Rule 40 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabhodhak Service Rules, 2008 provides power to relax rules, which reads as under:- “40. Whether such relaxation is desirable in the case of the petitioners is to be decided by the appointing authority as per the Rules and not by this Court. 16. Rule 40 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabhodhak Service Rules, 2008 provides power to relax rules, which reads as under:- “40. Power to relax rules:- In exceptional cases where the Appointing Authority is satisfied that operation of the rules relating to age or regarding requirement of experience for recruitment causes undue hardship in any particular case or where the Appointing Authority is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to age or experience of any person, it may with the concurrence of the Government, by order dispense with or relax the relevant provisions of these rules to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner, provided that such relaxation shall not be less favorable than the provisions already contained in these rules: Provided that relaxation in the prescribed period of service or experience under this rule shall only be granted to the extent of 1/3 period of service or experience prescribed for promotion to any post before holding the meeting of the Department Promotion Committee.” 17. In number of the writ petitions the grievance of the petitioners is that they have submitted their application form for the post of Prabodhak pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.05.2008, but the respondents are not considering their candidature only on the ground that the experience certificates submitted by the petitioners are not countersigned by the District Education Officer and the said experience cannot be treated as teaching experience as required under the advertisement. 18. The similar controversy, as involved in this writ petition, has already been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 12.09.2008 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9112/2008- Bhoja Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., along with 16 other writ petitions, wherein this Court has observed as under:- “28. 18. The similar controversy, as involved in this writ petition, has already been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 12.09.2008 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9112/2008- Bhoja Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., along with 16 other writ petitions, wherein this Court has observed as under:- “28. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners as well as on behalf of respondent State and after carefully going through the judgments passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Jodhpur High Court as also the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008, since the project under which the petitioners are working, is not included in sub-Rule (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008, the petitioners cannot be given benefit under the aforesaid provisions and the relaxation can only be granted by the Appointing Authority as per Rule 40 of the Rules of 2008. Whether such relaxation is desirable in the case of the petitioners, is to be decided by the Appointing Authority as per the Rules and not by this Court. As such, all the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 29. In the result, all these 17 writ petitions fail being devoid of merit and the same are hereby dismissed.” 19. Rule 13(v) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 reads as under:- “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: (i) _ _ _ _ – _ (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 the 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.” 20. Many of the writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners on the ground they have gained the requisite experience but the experience certificate given by the school concerned has not been countersigned by the concerned District Education Officer and in absence of counter signature, their candidature has not been considered for appointment on the post of Prabodhak. 21. In this regard, this Court deem it proper to direct the respondents to verify the experience certificate submitted by the petitioners from the record of the concerned school and if it is found correct, then the same may be countersigned by the concerned District Education Officer. However, it is made clear that the experience certificate which have been issued by the recognised educational institution or project, can only be considered. 22. In few of the cases, the District Education Officer has countersigned the experience certificate but later on the same has been withdrawn. In such cases also, the respondents are directed to verify the experience of the particular petitioner from the record of the school and if it is found correct, then the same be considered for appointment on the post of Prabodhak even the counter signature has been withdrawn by the District Education Officer. 23. Few of the petitioners have applied for the post of Prabodhak having obtained the experience certificate outside the State and the same can only be considered after duly verification from the concerned school and the concerned District Education Officer of the particular State. It is for the respondents to verify the genuineness and correctness of the experience certificate submitted by the petitioners and it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to countersign experience certificate after verification. 24. In some of the writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the condition of five years continuous teaching experience without any break, which is one of the eligibility conditions for the post of Prabodhak under the Rules of 2008. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Raees Ahmed Qureshi vs. State & (2) Ors. 24. In some of the writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the condition of five years continuous teaching experience without any break, which is one of the eligibility conditions for the post of Prabodhak under the Rules of 2008. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Raees Ahmed Qureshi vs. State & (2) Ors. (SBCWP No. 8041/2008), vide judgment dated 03.09.2008, has observed that there cannot be any comparison of qualification having been prescribed by rule making authority, for the post of primary/upper primary school teacher or Prabodhak and if the Rule making authority considered to provide five years continuous teaching experience for making appointment to the post of Prabodhak as condition of eligibility; it cannot be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 25. In the case of Kanhaiya Lal Pareek vs. State & Others (SBCWP No. 6947/2008), the case of the petitioner was that the candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment as Prabodhak under the Rules of 2008 was rejected on the count that he is having Senior Secondary School Certificate (Vocational) and this Court in the case of Ramraj Tada vs. State and others (SBCWP No. 4005/2008), vide judgment dated 08.08.2008, has held as under:- “In the facts of instant case, this Court is of the opinion that since NCTE alone holds competence and in absence of guidelines or directives from NCTE, decision impugned taken by respondents in denying consideration to such candidates holding Senior Secondary (Voc.) as ineligible in no manner can be said to be in consonance with existing Scheme of Rules, 1996 particularly in terms of amendment dt. 28/06/06 and such action of the respondent deserves to be set aside. Consequently, all the petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. The decision taken by respondents holding petitioners ineligible on the premise in their qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) without Bridge Course, is hereby quashed and set aside. 28/06/06 and such action of the respondent deserves to be set aside. Consequently, all the petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. The decision taken by respondents holding petitioners ineligible on the premise in their qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) without Bridge Course, is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider petitioners who hold qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) as eligible for the post of Primary/ Upper Primary School Teachers and consider their candidatures for appointment based on their participation having taken place in pursuance of advertisement dated 30.10.2006 and if their names find place in order of merit in respective category, they may be considered and if found suitable, be appointed, however, they will be entitled for seniority, notional fixation etc., and all other service benefits but will not be entitled for salary for the intervening period during which they did not actually work.” 26. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforementioned case of Kanhaiya Lal Pareek (supra), having considered the judgment rendered in the case of Ramraj Tada (supra), has observed as under:- “In the instant matter also, the respondents are making appointment to the post of Prabodhak i.e. a post relating to teaching and while making appointments to the post aforesaid, the respondents are requires to adhere the norms prescribed by National Council of Teachers Education. In view of it, the judgment given in Ramraj Tada s case (supra) is having absolute application in present controversy also. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment to the post of Prabodhak as per the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008. If the petitioner stands in merit, appointment be accorded to him.” 27. Thus, in view of the ratio decided by this Court in the case of Ramraj Tada (supra), the respondents are required to consider the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) as eligible for appointment on the post of Prabodhak. 28. Some of the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing writ petitions as they applied for the post of Prabodhak pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.05.2008 but their candidature has been rejected by the respondents on the ground that they are not having qualification of Sr. 28. Some of the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing writ petitions as they applied for the post of Prabodhak pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.05.2008 but their candidature has been rejected by the respondents on the ground that they are not having qualification of Sr. Secondary, whereas as per the petitioners they are having qualification of Bachelor of Art Preparatory Programme(BAP) which is equivalent to Sr. Secondary. 29. Similar controversy has already been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of Jodhpur High Court vide judgment dated 03.04.2008 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5453/2007- Suja Ram vs. State of Raj. & Ors., wherein it has been held as under:- “The petitioner is admittedly not possessing Senior Secondary School certificate or the qualification of Intermediate. He also utterly failed to satisfy the Court as to how the BA Foundation Course is a qualification equivalent to Senior Secondary School Examination. The equivalence, as a matter of fact, is required to be decided by the Government and the Government in specific terms came forward with the case that no such decision is yet taken. The petitioner, therefore, is lacking eligibility to be considered for appointment as Teacher Gr.III.” 30. Thus, in view of the ratio decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suja Ram (supra), BA Foundation Course as well as qualification of Bachelor of Art Preparatory Programme(BAP) are not equivalent to Senior Secondary School Examination and the equivalence is required to be decided by the Government. Therefore, the petitioners are lacking eligibility to be considered for appointment on the post of Prabodhak. 31. In various writ petitions the grievance of the petitioners is that they have applied for the post of Prabodhak pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.05.2008, but they were not allowed to appear in the interview and the applications of the petitioners were not accepted on the ground that they have become overage. 32. Similar controversy has already been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of Jodhpur High Court vide judgment dated 02.09.2008 rendered in the case of Jaipal Bishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 32. Similar controversy has already been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of Jodhpur High Court vide judgment dated 02.09.2008 rendered in the case of Jaipal Bishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No. 6109/2008 = 2009(1) RLW (Raj.) 447) decided along with several other similar connected writ petitions, wherein the co-ordinate Bench of the Jodhpur High Court has held as under:- “With the finding above, the rational for extending age relaxation to the persons serving in educational projects requires consideration. The Prabodhaks appointed under the Rules of 2008 have to work in rural areas where the requirement is not only the teaching, but motivation for education also. A person having experience of working with educational projects operating in rural areas shall be certainly useful in achieving the object of teaching as well as of motivation. It is also pertinent to note that in all educational projects the natives of the village under operation of the project were engaged as para teachers or teaching/education assistance. These persons, therefore, are having an essential essence of rural society, as such they are certainly in better position to educate and motivate rural masses. It is also relevant to be noticed that the teachers working with the recognised institutions are having status as their service is regulated by the Rajasthan Non- Government educational Institutions Act, 1989 and the Rules framed thereunder, whereas the persons serving with the educational projects, may that be from last number of years are not having any statutory protection of service. They are getting consolidated honorarium and their service is coterminus to the project, therefore, if a welfare government has taken a step to cover those persons within the ambit of protection of statute by offering an opportunity to get themselves employed as Prabodhaks, then the same is not irrational but rather a need of time. Pertinent to note here that under the Rules of 2008 only a relaxation of maximum age limit is granted and no compromise is made with merit while making recruitment of the Prabodhaks. The persons serving educational projects are also required to face the process of selection necessary for recruitment as Prabodhak. Pertinent to note here that under the Rules of 2008 only a relaxation of maximum age limit is granted and no compromise is made with merit while making recruitment of the Prabodhaks. The persons serving educational projects are also required to face the process of selection necessary for recruitment as Prabodhak. It is settled by catena of judgments of Hon ble Supreme Court that Article 14 of the Constitution of India protects even a discriminatory law as a good law, if it is based on “reasonable” or “permissible” classification and the reasonability and permissibility can be measured with the scale that (1) if the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons who are grouped together from others left out of the group; and (2)the differentia have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law in question. The classification may be founded on various factors. The necessity is that there must be nexus between the classification and the object of law in question. The legislature may adopt a factor constituting dissimilarity, but if that bears a reasonable relation to the social object of law, there will be no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the instant matters the classification as pointed out is reasonable for the reasons give above and there is nothing to show that the relaxation in maximum age limit granted to the persons serving with the educational projects such as Rajiv Gandhi Swarna Jayanti Pathshala, Shiksha Karmi Project, Lok Jumbish Project, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and District Primary Education Programme is without reason, thus, there is no unequal treatment. The petitions for writ, in the circumstances fail and, therefore are dismissed.” 33. In the case of divorcee or widow, they are entitled to get age relaxation as per the provisions of Rule 13(viii) of the Rules of 2008. Similarly, handicap persons are also entitled to get age relaxation according to the provisions of law. 34. There are some cases in which the petitioners were selected as Para Teacher but on account of litigation they were not given appointment and were given appointment after the judgment passed by the competent Court. Similarly some petitioners were not selected as Para Teacher and they challenged the selection process and their writ petitions were allowed and they were declared selected and given appointment. 35. Similarly some petitioners were not selected as Para Teacher and they challenged the selection process and their writ petitions were allowed and they were declared selected and given appointment. 35. During pendency of litigation if the petitioners became overage, they are entitled to get age relaxation and be considered within age limit if they were within age limit as per the advertisement dated 31.05.2008 at the time of their initial appointment. Such petitioners are entitled for appointment on the post of Prabodhak considering them within age limit and the respondents have also powers to relax the rules under Rule 40 of the Rules of 2008, as held by this Court in the case of Manish Thakur vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission And Anr., reported in 2004(1) WLC (Raj.) 260 = RLW 2004(1) Raj. 220. 36. With regard to preferential treatment to the employees of the Government Project, it is submitted on behalf of the State that for imparting elementary education in far flung area/ remote area also, the State Government enacted schemes from time to time for opening schools in villages and Dhanis and the teaching work of such schools was/is carrying out by the Para Teachers under the direct control of the authorities of the State Government. The State Government for betterment of the elementary education in the remotest areas through Para Teachers, have conducted their training programmes on a periodical basis to improve their teaching skills. These Para Teachers have accepted the assignment only with legitimate expectation to be continued in the Government Project and at a subsequent stage the benefit out of the same by an employment on preferential basis on account of the accumulation of their experience working in those tedious and strenuous circumstances drawing advantage or psychological interaction with the children of far-flung areas with their own geography and economy besides social milieu. These Para Teachers were/are given only an honorarium by the State Government and there was no provision for any salary for such persons. 37. It is further submitted that spirit of the scheme was to uplift the elementary education programme in remote areas also. In order to have better accessibility to elementary education in farflung areas of the State, it was proposed to make a separate cadre of such persons having gathered experience of teaching in the local areas with local dialect. 37. It is further submitted that spirit of the scheme was to uplift the elementary education programme in remote areas also. In order to have better accessibility to elementary education in farflung areas of the State, it was proposed to make a separate cadre of such persons having gathered experience of teaching in the local areas with local dialect. Further the State Government from time to time started educational project viz; Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala/ Shiksha Karmi Board/ Lok Jumbish Project/ Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/ District Primary Education Programme and these education programmes were only meant for imparting education in the remotest/far-flung areas of the State. 38. Considering the experience of working in the Govt. Project, the employees of the Govt. Project have rightly been given preferential treatment. 39. In some of the writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the bonus marks given to the Para Teachers as 25 bonus marks to Para Teachers and 10 bonus marks to others have been given. The petitioners also referred Rule 2(k) of the Rules of 2008 and contended that awarding 25 bonus marks to Para Teachers is discriminatory. 40. As observed herein above, special treatment is given to the Para Teachers looking to their services rendered by them in remote areas of the State imparting education. Thus, as the Para Teachers are rendering their services and working under the Govt. Project and are only receiving honorarium, therefore, giving benefit to such Para Teachers 25 marks as bonus have been awarded to them as per the policy of the State and the same cannot said to be discriminatory. 41. In some of the writ petitions, the petitioners have not filed experience certificate. Such cases have rightly not been considered by the respondents. 42. Few of the petitioners have approached this Court with the grievance that they have been selected on the post of Prabodhak but the respondents are not allowing them to join their duties. In this regard, the respondents are directed to consider and examine the case of such petitioners and if they are otherwise found eligible, they may be allowed to join duties as per the select list. 43. In this regard, the respondents are directed to consider and examine the case of such petitioners and if they are otherwise found eligible, they may be allowed to join duties as per the select list. 43. In view of the observations made herein above, the respondents are directed to consider each and every case individually in view of the aforesaid directions and fresh select list be prepared accordingly and the petitioners who are found successful, be given appointment on the post of Prabodhak forthwith in the light of the aforesaid observations made herein above and the judgments passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court from time to time. 44. Consequently, all the writ petitions stand disposed of in the terms as indicated herein above.