S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.895/2009 Juliya Sultana & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of order : 09.02.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr. Anoop Dhand for petitioners. Mr. Hemant Mathur Dy.Govt. Counsel for State. Heard counsel for the parties. Both the counsels submit that the controversy involved in this case regarding consideration of the petitioners on the post of Prabhodhak on the ground that although the District Education Officer given experience certificate but the same was not considered for the reason that the departmental representative was not present in the selection of the petitioners in the non-government recognized institutions; has been squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 07.01.2009 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5951/2008 titled as Smt. Priti Dixit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The relevant paragraph 20,21 & 22 of the aforesaid judgment is as follows :- “20. Many of the writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners on the ground they have gained the requisite experience but the experience certificate given by the school concerned has not been countersigned by the concerned District Education Officer and in absence of the counter signature, their candidature has not been considered for appointment on the post of Prabhodhak. 21. In this regard, this Court deem it proper to direct the respondents to verify the experience certificate submitted by the petitioners from the record of the concerned school and if it is found correct, then the same may be countersigned by the concerned District Education Officer. However, it is made clear that the experience certificate which have been issued by the recognized educational institution or project, can only be considered. 22. In few of the cases, the District Education Officer has countersigned the experience certificate but later on the same has been withdrawn. In such cases also, the respondents are directed to verify the experience of the particular petitioner from the record of the school and if it is found correct, then the same be considered for appointment on the post of Prabhodhak even the counter signature has been withdrawn by the District Education Officer.” The submission of Mr. Anoop Dhand appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the validity of the initial appointment after 5 years cannot be challenged. I have considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and in my view the submission of Mr. Anoop Dhand is reasonable. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid paragraphs of the judgment and the respondents are directed to act in accordance with the aforesaid paragraphs of the judgment. (PREM SHANKER ASOPA),J. Gandhi 14