1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6579/02 Shahana Begum vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 17/1/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Surendra Singh for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer that the respondents be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Physical Training Teacher Gr.II. The petitioner applied for appointment on that post pursuant to the process of selection initiated by the respondents in the year 1997. When the candidature of the petitioner was not considered, she approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No.2101/1997 which was disposed of by judgement by this Court dated 21.4.1997 with direction to the respondents to consider her representation and decide the same in accordance with law and if she is 2 found entitled to appointment as per the merit, appoint her and in case her claim is rejected, intimate the reasons therefor. The direction was given to decide the representation within six weeks from the date of its receipt. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner submitted various representations to the respondents on 16.5.97, 30.5.97, 14.6.97, 30.6.97, 15.7.97, 30.7.97, 20.8.97, 20.9.97, 20.10.97, 18.11.97, 15.12.97, 3.1.98, 4.4.98, 9.7.98, 16.10.98, 12.1.99, 8.4.99, 5.8.99, 9.12.99, 8.3.2000, 10.6.2000, 7.9.2000, 19.3.2001, 18.9.01, 5.10.01, 15.10.01, 3.1.03, 4.1.02 and 22.7.02. Copies of some of which have been produced on record. According to the respondents, they have declined to grant appointment to the petitioner because the petitioner submitted the representation after the date of the judgement. Copy of the letter dated 9.9.2000 addressed by the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Kota is on record wherein it was stated that petitioner was required to 3 submit certified copy of the judgement along with representation within three weeks from the date of judgement, but the petitioner has not produced the same within the required time, therefore, she was asked to explain the reasons for delay along with the certified copy of the judgement. A perusal of the pleadings of the parties shows that the petitioner has asserted before this Court that she actually submitted the representation on 6.5.1997 along with relevant documents and this fact is stated in para 4 of the writ petition. The respondents in reply to para 4 of the writ petition have stated that the office of Deputy Director (Women) to which the aforesaid representation dated 6.5.1997 was addressed was itself abolished with effect from 1.1.1998 and in its place the new office of Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Kota came into existence and that has received the representation of the petitioner on 7.9.2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the division bench judgement of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Hari Ram, D.B. Special 4 Appeal (W) No.801/99 decided on 13.9.2000 wherein the division bench held that even if the relevant rules requires the qualification of graduate which certificate of physical education for appointment on the post of P.T.I. Gr.II, the respondents cannot deny appointment to the candidates possessing the degree qualification of B.P.E. of three years. It was directed that the cases of all such candidates who hold degree in physical education from respective universities be considered and they should be given appointment. Some of the candidates in that batch of petitions had obtained the degree of B.P.E from Nagpur and Amrawati also. The respondents in reply to the writ petition, however, have stated that the merit list of 1996-97 has now become ineffective and though Ram Kanya was given appointment, who had 72.23% marks having degree of B.P.E., but the petitioner was having B.P.E. degree but it was not recognized at that time and therefore she was not given appointment. The case of Ram Kanya was however considered because of the 5 direction passed by this Court. The petitioner in her representation Annexure-3 dated 7.9.2000 has categorically stated that apart from Ram Kanya one Madan Mohan having the qualification of the same university was appointed who had lesser marks than the petitioner whereas the case of the petitioner was ignored. It appears from the record that the petitioner has been continuously making representations to the respondents. In view of above, the petitioner has certainly made out a case of mandamus to be issued to the respondents to consider his case for appointment. The writ petition is allowed with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in terms of the division bench judgement of this Court in Hari Ram, supra and if it is found that any candidates lower than the petitioner in merit has been appointed, the petitioner shall be appointed. He shall however be only entitled to notional benefits for the intervening period. The appointment however shall be treated to have been made from the 6 date appointment of candidates immediately below her in merit was made. Compliance of the judgement be made within a period of three months from the date copy of this judgement is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/