ORDER : The issue in the writ petition is the interpretation of the Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabhodak Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter ‘the Rules of 2008’). 2. The fact of the case are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.05.2008, the petitioner sought appointment on the post of Prabhodhak under the Rules of 2008. He was required to appear for the interview on 12.08.2008 which he did, but did not find his name in the select list. Representations were of no avail. He in the circumstances filed petition No.12287/2008 which was decided on 07.01.2009 and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner’s representation for appointment to the post of Prabhodak. The petitioner’s representation following the judgment dated 07.01.2009 has however since been rejected by the impugned order dated 01.10.2009 on the ground that he as on 01.10.2009 the relevant date, being 46 years 10 months 25 years of age, was overage and therefore not entitled to appointment as Prabhodhak under the Rules of 2008. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 01.10.2009 is vitiated for non-application of mind in failing to allow the petitioner benefit of Proviso (v) of the Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008. Counsel submitted that the proviso aforesaid states that where one seeking appointment on the post of Prabhodhak was prior thereto serving under the notified educational projects of the State such as Lok Jumbish Pariyojana, and was within age limit when initially engaged, even in the event of being overage at the time of recruitment of Prabhodhaks, he was to be deemed within the age limit of 35 years as set out in Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008. It was submitted that the maximum age for appointment under the Lok Jumbish Pariyojana was 40 years and as the petitioner was within the said maximum age limit when so appointed and continued on the aforesaid post till the time of recruitment to the post of Prabhodhak under the Rules of 2008, he ought to have been deemed within the age limit under the Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 with the aid of Proviso (v). Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shailesh Verma & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shailesh Verma & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in SBCWP No.1839/2009 decided on 05.09.2012 whereunder a single Judge of this Court held that if a person was recruited, being of the prescribed age at the relevant time, in any of the educational projects referred to in the Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 and was so serving when appointments to the post of Prabhodhak were made, he was to be considered within age limit for appointment as Prabhodhak in terms of Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008. The single Judge held that if no age limit obtained for appointment under any one of the educational projects referred in Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008, even then in view of the said proviso being beneficial in nature the mere fact of a valid appointment in the educational project by itself would entail conferment of the benefits of Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 to such candidate if working on the said post when recruitment of Prabhodhak was done. The Single Judge specifically discounted submitted counsel for the peititioner, the argument that Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 suggested that one working with the educational projects referred to therein were required to be within the age limit of 35 years of age when appointed, as warranted for appointment on the post of Prabhodhak under Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 and only in that eventuality benefit of Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 would be available. It was submitted that D.B. Civil Special Appeal (w) No.14/2013 titled as Suresh Chand Bairwa & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. impugning the aforesaid judgment in the case of Shailesh Verma & Anr.(supra) was dismissed on 21.09.2016 holding that the single Judge had interpreted the Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 correctly. 4. Per contra, Mr. Parikshit Singh, Dy.GC appearing for the respondent relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of [(2010) SCC Online Rajasthan 1647 Kamla Kumari Vs. 4. Per contra, Mr. Parikshit Singh, Dy.GC appearing for the respondent relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of [(2010) SCC Online Rajasthan 1647 Kamla Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.] contrarily interpreting Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 and holding as under:- The expression “age limit” as occurring in the said proviso refers, undoubtedly and only, to the age limit as prescribed in the principal provision of Rule 13, i.e., 35 years; and not to any other age limit. The relaxation has ben provided to the persons who have crossed the age limit prescribed by Rule 13 ibid at the time of direct recruitment if, and only if, they are serving in any of the named projects and they had not crossed the said age limit prescribed by Rule 13 at the time of initial engagement in the project. The expression ''had they been within age limit'' does not refer to the age limit, if any, for the purpose of entry into such educational projects but, in view of its very purpose and context, refers to the age limit as provided for the recruitment in question i.e., recruitment to the post of Prabodhak. We are not impressed with the suggestion that the Rules of 2008 have been promulgated only for the purpose of regularizing the services of the persons working in educational projects. The Rules of 2008 have been framed specifically to regulate the services under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and different provisos to Rule 13 ibid dealing with the age requirement, have only spelt out various aspects of age relaxation. Merely because the Rules of 2008 provide for some relaxation, it cannot be deduced or presumed that the intention was to regularise all the persons serving in the projects en bloc. 5. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the aforesaid prior judgment of the Division Bench of this Court referred in Kamla Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors(supra) was unfortunately not brought to the notice of the Division Bench in the case of Suresh Chand Bairwa & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.(supra) decided on 21.09.2016. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. There are indeed conflicting views of two Division Benches of this Court on the interpretation of the Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.(supra) decided on 21.09.2016. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. There are indeed conflicting views of two Division Benches of this Court on the interpretation of the Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008. However the judgment of this Court in the case of Kamla Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Supra) decided on 16.04.2010 is the prior judgment in Suresh Chand Bairwa & Anr.(supra) but was not brought to the notice of the concerned Division Bench which renders its subsequent judgment dated 21.09.2016. In the circumstances it is open for this Court to adopt the reasoning in any of the two conflicting judgments which better commends itself to it on the interpretation of Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008. This is besides the per incurium doctrine which renders a subsequent judgment, on the same issue over a contra prior judgment of a co-equal Bench, non-binding. 8. I am of the considered view that the interpretation of Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 in Kamla Kumari (supra) rendered 5 years prior to Suresh Chand Bairwa & Anr. (supra) is the correct interpretation as it delves deeply into the text and the structure of Rule 13 and conclude that the expression “age limit” in Proviso (v) could only have reference to the age limit as prescribed in the Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 i.e. 35 years for appointment as Prabhodhak and not to any age limit for appointment to a teaching job in the educational projects referred to therein. In fact it would be quite peculiar for a proviso in the Rules of 2008 to altogether negate the age limit under Rule 13 a main provision, i.e. by providing that appointments beyond the age of 35 in the educational project detailed in the Proviso (v) of Rule 13 would be good for appointment of Prabhodhak even while the Rules of 2008 kept the upper age limit at 35 years for such appointment. What Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 did was to provide maximum age of 35 years for appointment as Prabhodhak. What Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 did was to provide maximum age of 35 years for appointment as Prabhodhak. But then Proviso (v) thereof reckoned for those who were appointed within the said age of 35 years to designated Government Educational Projects and confers on them benefit of such appointments by excluding the period of their appointment for computing the age limit of 35 years for appointment as Prabhodhak. The inevitable conclusion is that age relaxation under Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 attracts only to those persons employed with State Government Educational Projects including Lok Jumbish Pariyojana who at the time of their initial recruitment to such educational projects were 35 years or less but beyond the said age limit at the time of seeking recruitment to the post of Prabhodhak under the Rules of 2008. 9. Consequently, I am disinclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 01.10.2009 dismissing the petitioner’s representation to be appointed on the post of Prabhodhak on account of the his being overage. This for the reason that the petitioner admittedly was over 35 years of age when he was first appointed as teacher with the Lok Jumbish Pariyojana. He thus could then not be a beneficiary of Proviso (v) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008. 10. The writ petition is dismissed.