1 D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.374/2008 Smt. Maya Bagad Vs. The RPSC & Anr. Date of Judgment :: July 17, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. D.S. Poonia for the appellant. Mr. S.N. Kumawat for the RPSC. *** On hearing the learned counsel for the parties on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and considering the explanation contained therein, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing this appeal in time. Delay in filing this appeal is, therefore, condoned and the matter is heard on merit. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 23.2.2007 whereby the review petition filed by the respondent was allowed and the judgment dated 31.7.2006 allowing her writ petition, was modified. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that review petition was allowed without any notice to the appellant inasmuch as the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition directed the respondents to count the period of summer vacation for the purpose of teaching experience to adjudge the eligibility of the appellant whereas in the review order, he directed that such period should be considered valid only when a certificate to this effect is issued by the State Government. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to certificate (Ann.9) and argued that the appellant has completed the requisite experience of five years inasmuch as the period of summer vacations, which has been excluded by the respondent-RPSC, ought to have been included. Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel for the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission 2 opposed this appeal and submitted that the certificate of experience which was produced by the appellant was different than the certificate (Ann.9). It was argued that the certificate produced by the appellant also does not show that the appellant has completed period of five years and, therefore, she could not be considered as eligible. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned and other material on record, we find that even according to the certificate now produced by the appellant at Annexure- 9, she is not shown to have completed the period of five years. If this certificate is considered, it would be evident that the certificate is undated and what is stated therein is that the appellant is working in Government Girls Secondary School, Chhapoli, District Jhunjhunu as Second Grade Teacher, Sanskrit since 7.4.1997. It is not specifically stated that she has completed five years of teaching; nor is it evident when this certificate was produced. It is a matter of proof and if the requirement of the respondent is the certificate of experience of full five years from the competent authority, we do not find that the learned Single Judge has deviated from the basic direction contained in the judgment because he has not reviewed the operative part of the judgment directing the respondents to count the period of summer vacation also for the purpose of teaching experience. In our view, therefore, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality so as to warrant interference by the Division Bench. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),CJ. Skant/-