1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4550/2008 Hemant Kumar Shrimali Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order 17.2.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.PS Bhati,for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Bhati, Asstt to AAG. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner submitted that he was selected on the post of Shiksha Sahayogi on 11th June, 2001, however, he was not given appointment, then petitioner preferred SBCWP No.725/2002, wherein the petitioner was permitted to submit his representation before the respondents with directions to respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within four weeks by order dated 12.8.2004. The petitioner's representation was then considered and petitioner was given appointment only on 21st April, 2005. The petitioner, thereafter,joined the duties. The petitioner, then applied for the post of Prabodak in pursuance of the advertisement issued for giving appointment on the said post wherein there was requirement of 5 years teaching experience. The petitioner was lacking in experience and, therefore, the petitioner in this writ petition submitted that his teaching experience be counted from the date 11th June, 2001-the date on which he 2 was selected for the post of Shiksha Sahayogi and if his date of appointment is treated to be 11th June, 2001 then he acquired the teaching experience of more than 5 years by the time when the post of Prabodak was advertised. The petitioner in addition to above also prayed for seeking relief of seniority, pay and allowances with effect from 11th June, 2001. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. Mere selection not followed by actual appointment cannot give teaching experience to a person when he is appointed on the post for teaching the students. The petitioner admittedly was given appointment in the year 2005, which he accepted and joined the duties after the fresh order of appointment was passed. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim that he acquired the teaching experience because he was selected in the year 2001. The petitioner did not work on the post from 11th June, 2001 to the year 2005, therefore, the petitioner was not eligible for the appointment to the post of Prabodak on the basis of alleged service experience, which is non-existent. The petitioner accepted his appointment vide order dated 21st April, 2005 and, thereafter, joined the duties in the year 2005. The petitioner when failed to get the appointment on the post of Prabodak then he raised this dispute that his seniority and pay should be from the date of 11th June, 2001, the date on which he was selected. 3 The writ petition of the petitioner for this relief appears to be only an afterthought as well as has been filed after delay of 3 years and further after accepting the order without any protest of getting the appointment afresh. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/-