1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 2641 of 2007 RAKESH KUMAR PRAJAPAT V/S STATE & ORS. Mr. BN KALLA, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. RAJESH BHATI for Mr. RL JANGID, AAG, for the respondent Date of Order : 4.12.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondent to provide concession to the petitioner provided under Rule 7A of the Rules of 2000 claiming to be handicapped person, and seeks appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III relying upon Rule 7A, which provides that the condition or desirability of training/test/experience, wherever prescribed shall not apply to the disabled persons for temporary appointment, and where a particular training is essential for appointment to a post, the disabled person may be required to receive such training within two years of his appointment. A reply has been filed annexing therewith a notification of the government communicating that B.S.T.C. and B.Ed. have been taken to be basic qualifications, obviously as contradistinguished from any required training. The question did arise for consideration before this Court in bunch of writ petitions led by S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.210/2007 “Bhanwar Lal Jat & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.”, which was decided by this Court on 4.12.2007, wherein the matter was 2 examined threadbare and the judgment of this Court in Hardayal Singh Chahar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 1998 WLC (UC) 593 was considered. Then the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Shyamlal Joshi reported in AIR 1994 SC 1409 was also considered. Then Rule 266 providing for academic qualification was considered. Rule 7A was reproduced and it was held that Rule 266 provides for academic qualifications as distinguished from “particular training” by specifically holding that B.S.T.C./B.Ed./ B.EI.Ed. etc. are not of that “particular training”, to which Rule 7A refers for being available for concession. In my view, the controversy is, thus, squarely decided against the petitioner by the aforesaid judgment in Bhanwar Lal's case. The writ petition thus, has no force and is dismissed. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/