Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court on the ground that the respondents be directed to consider her case for absorption under the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Services Rules, 2010. 2. Shri D.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent no.4- institution namely Tagore Vidhya Bhawan was receiving grant-in-aid for last several years, but it was stopped sometime ago because of certain irregularities on the part of the management, therefore, for that reason, respondents are not considering the case of the petitioner. 3. Petitioner has challenged validity of Rule 2(g) and 2(k) and Rule 4 and 5 of the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Services Rules, 2010 to argue that the consideration for absorption in government service cannot be confined to only such teachers, who are working against sanctioned post receiving grant-in-aid. This should be made open even for those who were working in recognised private school even if they are not receiving grant-in-aid. 4. It is contended that the appointment of the petitioner was made on 1.7.1988 against a duly sanctioned post against which grant-in-aid was being received, but the grant-in-aid was discontinued by the Government by order dated 16.12.1996 for fault on the part of management, therefore, for that reason, the petitioner cannot be denied the right to consideration for absorption. It is argued that neither the Government has appointed the Administrator despite several requests and lapse of long time, nor restored the grant-in-aid. Petitioner and other teachers working in said institution, cannot be blamed for the irregularities if any committed by the management. The respondents ought to consider the case of the petitioner independently for absorption. 5. So far as the challenge to the vires of Rule 2(g), 2(k) and 4 and 5 of the Rules are concerned, I do not find any merit in the arguments of learned counsel because the Rules of 2010 have been purposely framed by the Government with a view to accommodating such teachers, who are working against sanctioned aided post on the date of commencement of these Rules. This is reflected from Rule 5 of the Rules. Those who are working in aided educational institutions against aided posts are by themselves constitute a separate class than those, who are employed with merely recognised educational institutions, not receiving grant-in-aid. This is reflected from Rule 5 of the Rules. Those who are working in aided educational institutions against aided posts are by themselves constitute a separate class than those, who are employed with merely recognised educational institutions, not receiving grant-in-aid. It is therefore that Rule 2(g) of the Rules defines an employee to mean an employee working in a recognised non-government aided educational institution who is working against aided and sanctioned post. Rule 2(k) also rightly defines non-government aided educational institution as one, which is receiving an aid in the form of maintenance grant from the State Government. Rule 4 requires the consideration of such employee who are employed on regular basis and are working against sanctioned aided posts. Similarly, Rule 5 also provides to the same effect. 6. It cannot therefore be said that there is a case for discrimination qua those who are working in private aided educational institutions not receiving grant-in-aid. The criteria that has been adopted by respondents-State in segregating one class of employee appointed in non-government educational institutions receiving grant-in-aid against sanctioned post and not including those who are working in non-aided institutions is a reasonable criteria based on intelligible differentia, which has a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 7. However, on other aspects, the petitioner may be justified that since the school in which she was appointed had been receiving grant-in-aid for a long period and that it is for the time being that the grant-in-aid was stopped for certain irregularities committed by the management and therefore even if the government has not taken any final decision after making enquiry regarding appointment of the Administrator or otherwise for restoring the grant-in-aid, her case should be considered for absorption under the Rules of 2010 deeming as if she was still working in aided institutions against sanctioned posts. 8. On that aspect of the matter, the petitioner is required to make a suitable representation to the Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner giving all the particulars and dates, who shall consider and decide such representation within thirty days in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.