1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6341/2008 Virendra Kumar vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 15.7.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA. Mr. HS Sidhu, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhati, Asstt to AAG. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Prabodak in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31st May, 2008 and his candidature was rejected on the ground that his experience certificate has not been counter signed by the competent officer – District Education Officer. This decision was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 14.8.2008 when petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner has challenged the said decision of the respondents on the ground that even if the experience certificate has not been counter signed even then the petitioner's candidature could not have been rejected in view of the judgment of this court delivered in the case of Manish Bisawa Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors reported in 2004(3) CDR 2064 (Raj.). Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a bare look at the petitioner's experience certificate shows 2 that petitioner had not completed 5 year's teaching experience as on 20th June, 2008 and as per the petitioner himself his first date of appointment is 7th July, 2003 and worked upto 16th May, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this was not the ground for rejection of the petitioner's candidature that he had no five year's teacher experience as required under the advertisement dated 31st May, 2008. It is also submitted that the teaching experience should be counted as per the academic session of the schools, then petitioner completed 5 years teaching experience, which is apparent from the Annex.6. It is submitted that the month of June is holiday in schools and, therefore, that is not mentioned in the Annex.6- the experience certificate dated 17th June, 2008. It appears that petitioner's candidature has been rejected only on the ground that experience certificate has not been counter signed but it has not been examined by the authorities concerned whether the petitioner's experience which has been shown for the sessions 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007- 08 was the sufficient experience for the purpose of eligibility of the petitioner and, therefore, the mater is required to be considered by the authorities concerned afresh. In view of the above reason, this writ petition is 3 disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's experience certificate Annex.6 and determine whether the petitioner completed 5 year's continuous services experience or not and pass appropriate order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order which may be supplied by the petitioner to the concerned authorities. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. cpgoyal/-