JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has worked as a Computer Instructor as alleged in Government Industrial Training Institute Sikar through placement agency and in support thereof he has placed two separate certificates issued by the placement agency of having worked as Computer Instructor from September, 2010 to May, 2012. 2. That 30522 vacancies of Vidhyalay Sahayak, included & appended to the Rajasthan Vidhyalay Sahayak Subordinate Service Rules, 2015 (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Rules, 2015") has been advertised by the respondent-State inviting applications from the eligible candidates who intend to participate in the selection process, pursuant to its advertisement dated 21.07.2015. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that u/R.16 of the Rules, 2015, a candidate who intends to participate in the selection process to be held for Vidhyalay Sahayak which is to be filled 100% by direct recruitment, must have academic and technical qualifications & experience, as appended in Column-4 of Schedule-I appended to the scheme of Rules, 2015 and apart from the academic & technical qualifications, one year's experience of working is also made mandatory of the State Government School/ State Recognised Non-Government School/State Government Educational Projects which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and so also R.2(j) of the Rules, 2015. It would be relevant to quote R.2(j), R.16 & Schedule-I appended to the scheme of Rules, to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant case, which read ad infra:- "R.2(j) "Experience" wherever prescribed in these rules means the experience gained by Academic/Non-Academic work in State Government School State Recognised Non-Government School/State Government Educational Projects (other than those engaged through placement agencies) viz. Lok Jumbish Pariyojana Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/District Primary Education Programme/Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala/Shiksha Karmi Board and Madarsa listed under the Madarsa Board. 16. Academic and technical qualifications and experience.- A candidate for direct recruitment to the post enumerated in the Schedule-I shall possess:- (i) the qualifications and experience given in column-4 of the Schedule-I; and (ii) working knowledge of Hindi written Devnagri script and knowledge of Rajasthani culture. SCHEDULE-I S.No. Name of the post Method of recruitment with percentage Minimum qualifications and experience for direct recruitment Committee for direct recruitment Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Vidhyalay Sahayak 100% by direct recruitment 1. Senior Secondary (10+2) from recognised Board or its equivalent. 2. SCHEDULE-I S.No. Name of the post Method of recruitment with percentage Minimum qualifications and experience for direct recruitment Committee for direct recruitment Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Vidhyalay Sahayak 100% by direct recruitment 1. Senior Secondary (10+2) from recognised Board or its equivalent. 2. Minimum one year's experience of working is essential in State Government School/State Recognised Non-Government School/State Government Educational Projects (other than those engaged through placement agency) viz. Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/ Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/ District Primary Education Programme/ Rajeev Gandhi Pathshala/Shiksha Karmi Board and Madarsa listed under the Madarsa Board 1. District Education Officer (Elementary Education) (Chairman) 2. District Education Officer (Secondary Education) (Member) 3. Nominee of Director Elementary Education not below the rank of Additional District Education Officer (Member) 4. Nominee of Collector not below the rank of Tehsildar (Member) 4. Counsel for petitioner submits that he was eligible for the post of Education Assistant, which earlier came to be advertised in the year 2013 included in the schedule appended to the Rajasthan Education Assistant Services Rules, 2013 and there was no such provision that a candidate must have minimum one year of experience in the State Government School/State Recognised Non-Government School/ State Government Educational Projects and according to him the Rules cannot be amended during mid of the selection process by superseding with Rules, 2015. Counsel further submits that since these vacancies have occurred much prior to enactment of the Rules, 2015, the vested right conferred to the petitioner cannot be divested by enacting new Rules, prescribing different qualifications & experience which is nothing but to eliminate the eligible candidates from participation in the selection process initiated pursuant to Advertisement dated 21.07.2015. 5. Counsel further submits that basic academic qualification for the post of Vidhyalay Sahayak is senior secondary which the petitioner holds with colourful marks and one year's experience of working in State Government School/State Recognised Non-Government School/State Government Educational Projects has been inserted under Rules, 2015 just to eliminate meritorious candidates like petitioner from participating in the selection process and it appears that this is an indirect method adopted by the Government to regularise the services of such of the persons who have served the State Government either directly or indirectly under the State Government/Government Projects, which according to the petitioner is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. 6. Counsel for respondents while supporting the scheme of Rules, 2015 submit that experience is one of the condition of eligibility and one year's experience will certainly give better efficiency to a person who may be finally inducted as Vidhyalay Sahayak under the Rules, 2015 and the rule making authority, if requires one year's experience as a condition of eligibility it cannot be held to be either arbitrary and unreasonable or hit by any lack of legislative competence or violative of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution or of any other constitutional provisions or statutory Rules and cannot be invalidated merely because the incumbents, approaching to this court, are not holding such qualifications. 7. The submission made by counsel for the petitioner is wholly bereft of merit for the reason that the process which was initiated by the respondents holding recruitment to the post of Education Assistant pursuant to advertisement dated 30.05.2013 under the Rajasthan Education Assistant Services Rules, 2013 has not reached to its conclusion and Rules, 2013 stands repealed by the Rules promulgated by the Government in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution namely the Rajasthan Vidhyalay Sahayak Subordinate Service Rules, 2015 notified on 20.07.2015 and 30,522 vacancies of Vidhyalay Sahayak have been advertised vide Notification dated 21.07.2015, mere initiating the selection process under the Rules, 2013, which stood repealed by virtue of R.40, no right could be said to be conferred to the petitioner and at least the State Government cannot be asked to continue the process under the repealed Rules, 2013. Apart from it, the experience gained by the petitioner through placement agencies of Computer Instructor in different schools/colleges pursuant to the policy of State to impart computer education through the private companies engaged to provide Computer Instructors along with computers on a fixed amount under the Integrated Scheme for Computer Education, indisputably could not be recognised as experience of academic/non-academic of the State Government School/State Recognised Non-Government School/State Government Educational Projects as a condition of eligibility for a candidate to participate in the selection process initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.07.2015. 8. Indisputably, the alleged experience certificate dated 17.11.2012 in no manner could be considered as experience gained by Government Educational Projects through placement agencies and it does not support the case of the petitioner, as prayed for. 9. 8. Indisputably, the alleged experience certificate dated 17.11.2012 in no manner could be considered as experience gained by Government Educational Projects through placement agencies and it does not support the case of the petitioner, as prayed for. 9. We do find substance in the contention of the ld.Advocate General that the State Government was fully conscious while inserting one year's experience of working as one of the condition of the State Government School/State Recognised Non-Government School/State Government Educational Projects, which are connected and related to school education and are under the control & supervision and it is for the State to decide which qualification including experience is necessary for a particular post and if the rule making authority requires experience of one year's working as condition of eligibility that cannot be held to be either arbitrary or unreasonable merely because the petitioners are not holding one year's experience of working which is one of the condition of eligibility stipulated in the Schedule-I appended to the R.16 of the Rules, 2015. 10. The Division Bench of this court before the main seat at Jodhpur in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9423/2015 [Shanti Lal Regar v. State of Rajasthan & Others] while examining the self same controversy where the petitioners does not possess the essential experience and challenged the validity of R.16 of the Rules, 2015 in its judgment dated 02.09.2015 has observed ad infra:- "It is not the case of petitioners that the authority had no power to make the rules or that the rule is contrary to any Act. And our considered view is that it is for the State to decide which qualification including experience is necessary for a particular post. The Rule requiring experience of one year working, as mentioned above, cannot be held to be either arbitrary or unreasonable. We, therefore, uphold the validity of Rule 16 under challenge, in so far as it provides for essential one year experience. The petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed." Consequently, in the light of the above discussion, the instant writ petition deserve no merit and accordingly stands dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******