1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5946/2008 Roopsudha Sharma vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER: 22.7.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Vinod Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhati, Asstt to AAG. <><><> At the request of learned counsel for the parties heard finally. The petitioner being aspirant for the post of Prabodak approached this Court for redressal of his grievance while saying that she has been denied the appointment to the post of Prabodak because of the assigned reason of lack of experience of 5 years teaching. The facts, which are not in dispute rather say admitted are that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of para-teacher on 8.7.2002 and she worked upto 10th July, 2005. Thereafter, she took leave and left the job and reported only on 1st July, 2006. As per the petitioner herself she was not allowed to join the post. According to the petitioner initially, the 2 correspondence was going on whether to take the petitioner back in service or not then this subsequent development came for appointment to the post of Parbodak. It is submitted that since the petitioner was not allowed to join the services and it was not within the control of the petitioner, therefore, the period which passed during this period from 10th July, 2005 till the advertisement was published, may be taken into account as experience earned by the petitioner for teaching. It is also submitted that before 6 months from publication of the advertisement, the petitioner was taken back in service. It is not in dispute that the leave beyond the period of 10th July, 2005 upto the period when petitioner joined was not the sanctioned leave nor it could have been the sanctioned leave to the total tenure of service rendered by the petitioner and the petitioner accordingly lacks experience. The petitioner if was not allowed to join the services when she reported after almost one year from the time she took leave then that was the right decision taken and the correspondence between one officer and another officer is of no consequence. The petitioner's taking back in service by the respondents is also of no help to the petitioner because of the reason that condition is the continuous teaching experience of 5 years and, therefore, 3 the petitioner cannot have continuous teaching experience of 5 years in the facts referred above. In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-