DBSAW NO.232/08. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.232/2008. IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7488/2002. Smt.Gayatri Kumawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Judgment:- March 5, 2008. QUORUM HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri R.K. Mathur for the appellant. ***** BY THE COURT:- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13/8/2007 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed. 2) The appellant in the writ petition has prayed for direction to the respondents that her case be considered for appointment on the post of Mahila Supervisor. The respondents however contested the case on the premise that appellant was not having requisite qualification namely; Secondary or Matriculate by a recognized Board and that she was merely having a qualification of Prathama. No candidate having qualification of Prathama was considered eligible. DBSAW NO.232/08. 2 Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition relying on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Curt in Shanker Lal Verma & 13 Ors. Vs. The Raj.State Electricity Board : W.L.C. (Raj.) 1999 (1) 1. 3) Shri R.K. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant-petitioner was already in service of the respondent-Department as she was appointed as Aangan Badi Worker vide order dated 9/11/1987 and that the selection of Mahila Supervisor was to be made from amongst the existing Aangan Badi Workers. It was, therefore, in-house promotion for which all Aangan Badi Workers, regardless of qualification they held, were eligible for consideration. Full Bench of this Curt in Shanker Lal Verma, supra considered the amendment made in the Rajasthan Subordinate Officers Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 vide notification of the government dated 28/6/1985 whereby the provision for considering the equivalent qualification as also sufficient to make one eligible for appointment was deleted. It was held that the amendment would be prospective in nature and such of the candidates who possessed equivalent qualification would be eligible for appointment if the appointments are sought to be made against the vacancies available prior to the date of amendment. In the present case, admittedly, the appellant was appointed on the post of Aangan Badi Worker on 9/11/1987. There can therefore be no question of her DBSAW NO.232/08. 3 case being considered on the strength of the equivalent qualification of Prathama. 4) We do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is therefore dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. (NARAYAN ROY), CJ. anil