CW 100/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.100/2006 Anita Sharma Versus State & Anr. Date of Order ::: 19/01/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. RN Mathur, for petitioner Mr. Mahesh C.Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for respondent-State Instant petition has been filed by widow for fair consideration of her appointment for the post of Primary School Teacher pursuant to advertisement dt.12/04/05 (Ann.1). Petitioner qualified Secondary School examination with subjects of Hindi, English, General Science & social Studies in the year 1980 (Ann.2) & Higher Secondary School Examination from Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan in 1982 (Ann.4) besides Prathma from Shri Vrihad Gujarat Sanskrit Parishad, Ahmedabad which is equivalent to Secondary School examination with subjects of Mathematics, Science, Social Science, Advance Hindi & Sanskrit in the year 1981 (Ann.3). She also possessed qualification of B.A. (1988) from Ajmer University & B.Ed (1990) from Kota Open University as avered in para 5 of the petition. Post of Primary School Teacher under Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (“Rules, 1996”) was CW 100/06 //2// advertised vide Ann.1 dt.12/04/05, pursuant to which, she being eligible submitted application but her candidature was rejected by respondents vide letter dt.29/06/05 (Ann.9) on the premise that she failed to qualify English subject at Secondary School level. Counsel for petitioner submits that once petitioner possessed requisite qualification as laid down and being eligible for a Primary School Teacher, there was no justification available for respondents to reject her candidature holding to be ineligible vide order impugned (Ann.9) and their action is not legally sustainable. In their reply - para 2, respondents have inter-alia averred that petitioner did not qualify subject of mathematics at Secondary School level; and she passed out Prathma from Sri Vrihad Gujarat Sanskrit Parishad, Ahmedabad with subject of mathematics which was made equivalent to secondary school examination from Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan vide order dt.25/01/01(Ann.6); and she passed out Prathma in 1981 (Ann.3), as such she could not be considered to be eligible on the premise of her qualification being recognised by Board of Secondary Education at a later stage. CW 100/06 //3// I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for parties and with their assistance, pondered over material on record. From statement of qualification referred to in para 5 of the petition, it clearly demonstrates that she fulfilled eligibility for the post of Primary School Teacher as laid down in Rules, 1996 and as regards objection raised by respondents about mathematics subject which she passed out in her Prathma from Vrihad Gujarat Sanskrit Parishad, as is evident from mark sheet (Ann.3), which was declared as equivalent to Secondary School examination from Board of Secondary Education as is evident from order dt.25/01/01 (Ann.6). Submission of Government Counsel that letter recognising Prathma being equivalent to Secondary School Examination was issued on 25/01/01 much after the petitioner having qualified Prathma with mathematics in the year 1981, will not hold good for the reason that eligibility has to be looked into on the date of advertisement dt.12/04/05(Ann.1) when indisputably petitioner held qualification requisite for the post of Primary School Teacher under the Rules, 1996; in such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, very rejection of her candidature holding her to be in-eligible by CW 100/06 //4// respondents vide order impugned (Ann.9) is in no manner legally sustainable and deserves to be set aside. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Order dt.29/06/05 (Ann.9) is hereby quashed & set aside. Respondents are directed to consider her candidature while holding the petitioner eligible for appointment to the post of Primary School Teacher pursuant to advertisement dt.12/04/05 (Ann.1) and if her name finds place in the order of merit, appropriate orders be passed with consequential benefits including seniority and other service benefits as per order of her merit and notional fixation of pay. However, she will not be entitled for pecuniary benefits for intervening period during which she had actually not worked. Compliance be made within three months. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/100CW06-19JnApptt.doc