JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners, said to be possessing the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer, Accountants Assistant under Rajasthan Rural Development and Panchayati Raj State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1998 (hereinafter after referred to as 'the Rules of 1998') pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.03.2013 issued by the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, have filed these writ petitions, while challenging the validity of newly inserted proviso to Rule 14 of the Rules of 1998 vide Notification dated 06.03.2013. The newly inserted proviso to Rule 14 of the Rules of 1998 is reproduced hereunder: "the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed in case of direct recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer, Assistant Programme Officer, Computer Instructor (PR), Accounts Assistant, Coordinator Training, Coordinator I.E.C. and Coordinator Supervision by a period equal to service rendered on contract other than through placement agency on the post of Junior Technical Assistant / Senior Technical Assistant, Junior Engineer, Programme Officer, Assistant Programme Officer, Manager SGSY, Programmer, MIS Manager, Lekha Sahayak/ Accountant / Assistant Accounts Officer, Coordinator Training, Consultant Training, Coordinator IEC or Coordinator Supervision under MGNREGA, or any scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj or Junior Engineer working on contract other than through placement agency under any project of the Department of Education in the State, if he/she was not over age at the time of engagement." 2. The petitioners, who are working on the post of Junior Accountants and Junior Technical Assistants in the schemes run by the State of Rajasthan are aggrieved by the condition mentioned in the newly added proviso to Rule 14 of the Rules of 1998, which prescribes that age relaxation in upper age limit will be provided by a period equal to service rendered on contract to those candidates only, who were not over age at the time of their engagement in the schemes mentioned in the provisions. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners were over age at the time of their engagement on the posts of Junior Accountants and Junior Technical Assistants under the schemes mentioned in the proviso. 4. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners were over age at the time of their engagement on the posts of Junior Accountants and Junior Technical Assistants under the schemes mentioned in the proviso. 4. Being aggrieved with the said condition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of newly added proviso to Rule 14 of the Rules of 1998 and it is argued on their behalf that there is no nexus in relation to the object sought to be achieved in providing that relaxation in the upper age limit will be provided to those persons only who were not over age at the time of their engagement in schemes mentioned. It is contended that the petitioners have gained sufficient experience while discharging duties on the various posts under the various schemes and, therefore, for fulfilling the ultimate object to make sure the availability of skilled persons, there is no justification or logic in providing the said condition. 5. On the strength of the above arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners have prayed that newly added proviso to Rule 14 of the Rules of 1998, to the extent it restricts the benefit of relaxation in upper age limit to those candidates only who were not over age at the time of their engagement in various schemes, may kindly be declared ultra vires. 6. Having considered the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioners and having examined the material placed on record, we are clearly of the view that these writ petitions are devoid of merits. 7. Age relaxation for direct recruitment, if to be granted, would be a matter for the Government to prescribe in the relevant rules and beyond what has been prescribed, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In order to mitigate against the hardship likely to be faced by the perspective candidates, but at the same time maintaining the balance of the requirements of services, the Government has provided age relaxation in the upper age limit up to the period equal to the service rendered on contract by certain categories of employees in the various schemes by way of notification of amendment as issued on 06.03.2013 with a rider that the said employee engaged in the various schemes was not over age at the time of his engagement in the said scheme. Taking for example one of the petitioner viz. Taking for example one of the petitioner viz. Jai Prakash Sharma, in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4765/2013, at the time of his engagement as Junior Accountant under the total sanitation programme in the year 2006 was of 43 years of age, whereas the maximum age limit as prescribed in the Rules for the post of Junior Accountant is 37 years. If the relaxation as claimed by the petitioners has been provided, it would be something like allowing a person even at 50 years of age to enter into the service as a Junior Accountant. The Government, in its wisdom, if has chosen to restrict the benefit of relaxation in the upper age limit up to those persons only, who were within the age limit at the time of their engagement on contract basis in the various schemes of the State Government, it cannot be said that anything unreasonable or irrational has been provided. 8. In the ultimate analysis we do not find any merit in the challenge of the petitioners to the validity of newly added proviso to Rule 14 of the Rules of 1998. 9. Hence, there is no force in these writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. Stay petitions also stand dismissed. 10. There shall be no order as to costs.Petitions dismissed. *******