[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11858/2008 SMT. ARCHANA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Date: 24.10.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Rajendra Prasad for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Gupta, A.A.G. for the State. **** Issue notice. Learned AAG Mr. S.K. Gupta accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. At the joint request of learned counsel for the respective parties, the matter is heard and finally disposed of keeping in view the nature of controversy raised. It is informed that similar controversy has been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9472/2008- Preeti Bala Tripathi Vs. State & (2) Ors. vide order dated 05.09.2008, whereby the writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to treat the petitioner eligible and allow her to participate in the process of selection for the post of Prabodhak in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.05.2008 issued under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Gupta also does not dispute the fact that the [2] controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated 05.09.2008. Here in the instant case, the petitioner initially joined as Para Teacher on 10.07.2001 and since then she is continuously working and being eligible has applied for the post of Prabodhak pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.05.2008 (Annexure-1) under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008. Learned counsel submits that Para-Teachers are considered to be within age in terms of R.13(v) of Rules, 2008 and as per experience certificate (Annexure-7), the petitioner has teaching experience for about 6 years and 11 months, however, since certificate contained a note that she took medical leave from 16.08.2004 to 28.08.2004 and 03.09.2004 to 11.09.2004 and leave other than medical from 27.04.2007 to 30.04.2007 and 01.05.2007 to 10.05.2007 which has been considered by the respondents as break in service/ experience as a result of which, she has been denied consideration for participation and was/is not permitted to appear in the interview which are still in process. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that irrespective of nature of break in teaching experience, certainly it disqualifies the petitioner in holding her in-eligible in pursuance of advertisement dated 31.05.2008. This Court in Beeram Ram Choudhary Vs. [3] State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6273/2008, decided on 15.10.2008, has taken the view that if a person remained absent from duties or break in service for the reasons beyond his/her control, then that period is required to be considered as a part of teaching experience acquired. The petitioner is having continuous teaching experience of about 6 years and 11 months and the period which has been treated to be break in service, is in fact a medical leave period availed by her for the period from 16.08.2004 to 28.08.2004 and 03.09.2004 to 11.09.2004 and leave other than medical from 27.04.2007 to 30.04.2007 and 01.05.2007 to 10.05.2007, which is admissible under law, cannot be considered to be break in service dis-entitling her from participating in process of selection in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.05.2008. Therefore, in view of the ratio decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner eligible and allow her to participate in process of selection for the post of Prabodhak in pursuance of advertisement dated 31.05.2008 issued under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/