1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Abdul Hanif Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9057/2008 Date of Order : : 29/01/2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr.Kuldeep Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr.R.L.Jangid, Addl.Advocate General for the respondents. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his candidature for the appointment on the post of Prabodhak and grant appointment on the said post, if he is otherwise eligible, in accordance with the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 (for short “the Rules of 2008” hereinafter) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a member of Other Backward Class (for short “the OBC” hereinafter) and he was working as Para Teacher in Government Upper Primary School, Sindhiyo Ki Dhani, Chaipura (Palina), Panchayat Samiti Phalodi, District 2 Jodhpur. The petitioner has been working on the said post continuously for last more than five years since his appointment on 01.02.1994. The Rules of 2008 came to be promulgated in exercise of power under Section 89 read with Section 102 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short “the Act of 1994”) prescribing the condition for the appointment on the post of Prabodhak. As per Schedule attached to the Rules of 2008, a candidate must have at least five years continuous teaching experience without any break in any recognized educational institution/ educational project for appointment on the post of Prabodhak. As per the petitioner, he is having more than five years continuous teaching experience as Para-Teacher. He faced interview and was selected and his name finds place in merit at Serial No. 874 but he has not been considered only on the ground of not having requisite teaching experience in any recognized institution/ educational project. It is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent State that the petitioner is not having five years continuous teaching experience. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a number of writ petitions came to be filed before the Jaipur Bench of this Court being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5951/2008; Smt.Priti Dixit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and 1066 connected 3 writ petitions, which came to be decided vide order dated 7.1.2009 wherein coordinate Bench of this Court, in para 42 of the order, observed as under:- “Few of the petitioners have approached this Court with the grievance that they have been selected on the post of Prabodhak but the respondents are not allowing them to join their duties. In this regard, the respondents are directed to consider and examine the case of such petitioners and if they are otherwise found eligible, they be allowed to join duties as per the select list.” Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner faced the interview and according to the petitioner, he stands in merit but has been denied consideration for appointment on the post of Prabodhak on the ground of lacking requisite teaching experience, in my view, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to examine the case of petitioner individually with reference to his eligibility including teaching experience and if he otherwise fulfills the eligibility criteria as provided under the Rules of 2008 and is a meritorious then his case may be considered according to his merit and pass an appropriate order regarding appointment within 15 days from producing the certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. NK 4 S.B.CIVIL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO. 15594/2008 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9057/2008 Date of order : : 29/01/2009 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr.Kuldeep Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr.R.L.Jangid, Addl.Advocate General for the respondents. Since the writ petition itself has been disposed of, the stay petition also stands disposed of. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK