1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2131/2002. : : Dr. Gopal Mishra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 18.3.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Dr. Y. C. Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. Akhil Simlote for respondent No.4. Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the promotion granted to respondent No.4 Shri Lal Chand Sharma on the premise that petitioner was wholly ineligible for promotion on the post of Acharya (Professor) of the subject of Darshan Shastra (Philosophy) because he had no experience of teaching of Darshan Shastra. 3. Dr. Y. C. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was the only eligible candidate for that post because according to Rajasthan Sanskrit Education Service Rules, 1977 (for short “the Rules 2 of 1977”) as amended in 1987, requirement of the rules is that Principal of Sanskrit College/Principal of Uppadhaya College/Deputy Inspector would be eligible for promotion. If none of them is available, then the person holding the post of Lecturer in the subject concerned shall be eligible for promotion to the post of Professor in the subject concerned as prescribed by University of Rajasthan. Learned counsel referred to the relevant rules made by University of Rajasthan as mentioned in additional affidavit of Shri Lal Chand and argued that according to the said rules what is required is that for promotion on the post of Professor/Head of Acharya the candidate must possess Acharya degree with five years teaching experience of Acharya classes. It was contended that respondent-Lal Chand, who was Lecturer teaching Hindi subject, subsequently acquired the Acharya degree in Darshan Shastra, but he has had no experience of teaching that particular subject. 4. Shri Akhil Simlote, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 (Lal Chand) has opposed the writ petition and argued that Lal Chand was the only candidate, who was eligible for promotion because he held the post of Principal of Shastri College as per the Rules of 1977 as mentioned in 3 Column No.8 at Serial No.2. It was argued that question of considering petitioner for promotion on the post of Acharya would arise only if eligible candidates as Principal of Sanskrit College/Principal of Uppadhaya College/Deputy Inspector are not available. Respondent No.4 was fully eligible because he was holding the post of Principal of Shastri College and what is required as per qualification prescribed by University of Rajasthan for promotion on the post of Acharya is first class Acharya degree in Darshan Shastra. The respondent No.4 possesses first class Acharya degree in Darshan Shastra and he also possesses experience of teaching of Acharya classes. The respondent was appointed as Lecturer in 1990 and thereafter he was selected by RPSC in the year 1997 as Principal, Shastri College and joined in the year 1998 and since then he has been discharging the duties on the post of Principal upto his selection as Professor vide order dated 30.6.1998. In view of this, it was argued that since the respondent No.4 had been continuously working as Lecturer since 1990 and taking Shashtri class both as Lecturer and Principal, therefore, it cannot be said that he was not eligible for promotion. 4 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record and also the qualification prescribed by University of Rajasthan for Professor/Head of Acharya Department, I find that in the prescribtion made by University of Rajasthan i.e. first class degree in the subject with five years teaching experience of Shastri/Acharya classes, there is no insistence that apart from Acharya degree, teaching experience of five years should be exclusively in that very subject. What is prescribed is five years teaching experience of Shashtri/Acharya classes which the respondent No.4 does possess. When the rules on their plain reading, convey one meaning that teaching experience of Shastri/Acharya classes is required, this Court by adding the supposed intention of the rule making authority cannot be restrict the scope of rule so as to read therein which it does not perishable, which if the rule making authority wanted to do so could specifically provide. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.35.