S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1638/2009 Miss. Sadhna Sood Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of order : 13.02.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr. D.P.Sharma for petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents. Notices be given to Mr. S.N.Kumawat, Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The grievance raised by the petitioner in this case is that pending litigation relating to the challenge of her selection as Para Teacher, she was not given appointment and after finalization of the same, she was given appointment from the subsequent date. Her initial date of appointment is 03.06.2002 and from that day she completed the 5 years requisite teaching experience. Counsel for the petitioner submits that his case is covered by the judgment of this Court dated 07.01.2009 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5951/2008 and other connected writ petitions in para No. 34 and 35 titled as Smt. Priti Dixist Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The relevant para 34 and 35 of the judgment is as follows :- “34. There are some cases in which the petitioners were selected as Para Teacher but on account of litigation they were not given appointment and were given appointment after the judgment passed by the competent Court. Similarly some petitioners were not selected as Para Teacher and they challenged the selection process and their writ petitions were allowed and they were declared selected and given appointment. 35. During pendency of litigation if the petitioners became overage, they are entitled to get age relaxation and be considered within age limit if they were within age limit as per the advertisement dated 31.05.2008 at the time of their initial appointment. Such petitioners are entitled for appointment on the post of Prabodhak considering them within age limit and the respondents have also powers to relax the rules under Rule 40 of the Rules of 2008, as held by this Court in the case of Manish Thakur Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Anr., reported in 2004 (1) WLC (Raj.)260.“ Counsel for the respondents has not disputed the said legal position. I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the parties and in my view the petitioner is entitled for counting of her service from 03.06.2002, therefore, she is declared eligible for the post and entitled for consideration of appointment. The respondents are further directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from today. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (PREM SHANKER ASOPA),J. Gandhi 33