SBCWP No.1721/2009 – Smt Sumitra Yadav v. State of Raj. & ors Date of order: 13.04.2009 1 of 2 S.B.C.W.P. No.1721/2009 Smt Sumitra Yadav v. State of Rajasthan & others Date of Order: 13th April, 2009 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr N.R. Chaudhary, for the petitioner Mr R.L. Jangid, AAG for the respondents The petitioner faced selections, conducted by the respondents as per Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabhodhak Service Rules, 2008 for the purpose of making appointment to the post of Prabodhak. However, her result has been withheld on the count that there was a break of 180 days in her service. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, whatever break is there in the service of the petitioner, that was for the reasons beyond her control. It is stated that out of 180 days referred above, the petitioner remained absent from duties for a period of 162 days because of head injury and for remaining days, she was sick. It is asserted that it was humanly impossible for the petitioner to join duties for the days she was facing head injury or she was suffering ailment. The issue regarding consideration of the period of absence as a consequence of unavoidable circumstances was taken into consideration by this Court in the case of Smt. Vishnu Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan & ors., SBCWP No.8796/2008 decided on 21st SBCWP No.1721/2009 – Smt Sumitra Yadav v. State of Raj. & ors Date of order: 13.04.2009 2 of 2 November, 2008. The controversy in the present petition is squarely covered by the law laid down in the case aforesaid, in terms that: “ As a matter of fact, the break in service is the period in which the relationship of master and servant does not survive due to some positive act, either by the employee or by the employer. The period of leave due to unavoidable circumstances or to say the circumstances beyond the control of the employee or the employer can not be treated as break in service. Similarly, if the leave is sanctioned one, then that too maintains the relationship of master and servant. The period of availing sanctioned leave, thus, cannot be excluded from the term of continuous service.” The case of the petitioner is also required to be examined in the light of law laid down by this Court in the case of Vishnu Kanwar (supra). Accordingly, this petition for writ is disposed of and the respondents are directed to consider candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment on the post of Prabodhak in terms of directions given by this Court in the case aforesaid i.e. Smt. Vishnu Kanwar (supra). [GOVIND MATHUR],J. mma