1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2117/2009 Manju Indolia Versus The State of Rajasthan and others Date of order ::: February 25,2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Devi Singh Choudhary, for the petitioner Mr.S.N.Kumawat, Addl.AG for the State BY THE COURT Heard learned counsel for the parties. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr.S.N.Kumawat, Addl.AG is directed to accept the notices. Since the controversy raised in this case is covered by para No.7 of the judgment of this Court in Smt.Priti Dixit V.State of Rajasthan and others (SBCWP No.5951/2008 and other connected writ petitions) decided on 7.1.2009, therefore, the case was heard finally. Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the training period is to be counted as held by this Court in Para No.7 of the aforesaid judgment in Smt.Priti Dixit. 2 Mr.Kumawat, Addl.A.G. does not dispute that the present case is covered by the aforesaid judgment dated 7.1.2009. I have gone through contents of the writ petition and further considered the submissions of counsel for the parties. Para 7 of the judgment dated 7.1.2009 in Smt. Priti Dixit (supra) is as follows: “7. In the aforesaid case of Smt. Vishnu Kanwar (supra), the co-ordinate Bench of the Jodhpur High Court has considered the ratio decided in the case of Shankar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (SBCWP No.6766/2008, decided on 15.10.2008), wherein this Court has considered the issue relating to the consideration of the period of training undertaken by the persons appointed as Para Teacher as part of teaching experience and observed asunder:- “Under the Rules of 2008 the term “teaching experience” is defines as follows:- 2(k) “Teaching Experience”for the purpose of direct recruitment includes the experience gained in supervisory capacity in any recognised educational institution of project.” The term “service” or “experience” is also defined under the Rules of 2008 in following terms:- 2(1)“Service” or “Experience” wherever prescribed in these rules as a condition for promotion from one Service to another or within the Service from one category to another or to senior posts, in the case of a person holding a lower post eligible for promotion to higher post shall include the period for which the person has continuously worked on such lower post after regular selection in accordance with rules promulgated. 3 Note: Absence during service e.g. Training, leave and deputation etc., which are treated as “duty” under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 shall also be counted as service for computing experience or service required fro promotion;” Suffice it to mention here that the interpretation of term “experience” under Rule 2(1) relates to promotion from one service to another or within the service from one category to another or to Senior Posts in the case a person is holding lower post. For the purpose of promotion, the period of training is required to be taken into consideration as experience, however, the Rules are silent regarding consideration of training as experience for direct recruitment. The term “teaching experience” as interpreted under Rule 2 (k), though not refers that what shall be the teaching experience, but that is quire broad. It refers inclusion of experience gained in supervisory capacity in any recognised education institution or project as teaching experience. Meaning thereby, the teaching experience includes the experience of teaching as well as the experience gained in supervisory capacity with a recognised institutions. A person undertaking training for holding a teaching post after selection to a post concerned then that certainly stands on a better pedestal for considering “teaching experience” than the experience gained in supervisory capacity. The period spent for training is already treated as part of experience under the Rules of 2008, for the purpose of promotion and, therefore, in totality of the facts and legal position as stated above, I do not find any just reason to deny the post selection training relating to a teaching post as a “teaching experience”. The petitioner in view of whatever said above is certainly having a “teaching experience” of more than five years on inclusion of the training relating to post of Para Teacher. He is, thus, entitled to be considered for appointment as Prabodhak.” The respondents are directed to count the period of one month training from 22.6.2003 to 22.7.2003 while computing the 4 period of five years' experience and to consider case of the petitioner against the existing vacancies and in case the petitioner's name finds place in the merit list, then his case be considered for giving fresh appointment within one month. The writ petition is disposed of. (PREM SHANKER ASOPA) J. गोपाल