1. - The appeal is admitted. Mr. Ashok Gaur advocate waives service for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. C. P. Sharma advocate waives service for respondent No. 3. Keeping in view the controversy involved in the writ petition, we heard and dispose of the appeal finally at this stage.

2. The respondents No. 1 to 3 (here-in-after referred to, 'the petitioners') applied for appointment to the post of Sanskrit Teacher pursuant to the advertisement dated 26th November, 1999 issued by the State Government through Director, Sanskrit Education (here-in-after referred to 'the Government'). The applications were invited for 269 vacant posts of Sanskrit Teachers. The advertisement provided for the eligibility for the post of Sanskrit Teacher thus :

"Holding Praveshika/Senior Upadhyaya or any other equivalent Sanskrit Education Teacher Certificate recognised by the State Government from the Board of Secondary Education with English as one of the subjects."

3. Two notes (a) and (b) were appended thereto, Note (a) provides thus :

"In Praveshika/Secondary or any equivalent examination, five subjects including Hindi, English and Mathematics are must, otherwise the candidate shall not be held eligible."
Note (b) reads thus :

"After acquiring higher qualification, improvement in grade/marks in lower category shall not be recognised for consideration".

4. The candidature of the petitioners was not considered on the ground that the qualification of Praveshika was acquired by them subsequent to the higher education and, therefore, they were not eligible as per note (b) appended to the advertisement.

5. The Government contested the writ petition by responding thereto. In the reply they dealt with the case of each of the petitioners. It was submitted that none of them was qualified as they first acquired higher qualification and then appeared in the lower category like Praveshika.

6. The single Judge relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar & others v. State of Rajasthan & another, RLR 2001(3) 258 and, accordingly, by the impugned order date 4th September, 2006 directed the Government to take into consideration the marks obtained by the petitioners in subsequent examination to the higher qualification already acquired and prepare a fresh merit list and give them appointment on the post of Sanskrit Teacher Grade III. It is this order that is impugned by the Government in this special appeal.

7. Though the facts of all the three petitioners slightly differ, we do not deem it necessary to multiply the facts by setting out the facts relating to each of them; the facts relating to one of them i.e. Laxmi Kant Sharma shall suffice. He did his Secondary in the year 1989 from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer and Senior Higher Secondary in the year 1990 from the same Board. He did his B.A the year 1990 from the University of Rajasthan and did his B.Ed. (Shiksha Shastri) in the year 1996 from Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, Tirupati (Andhra Pradesh). After having passed M.A. and B.Ed., as noticed above, he did Praveshika in the year 1997. The question that falls for our consideration and decision is whether the marks obtained by the petitioners in Praveshika after having acquired higher qualification can be considered for considering the qualification/eligibility of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Grade III Sanskrit Teacher pursuant to the advertisement dated November, 1999 or the qualification and the marks obtained by them in Praveshika have to be ignored by virtue of note (b) appended to the advertisement dated 26th November, 1999.

8. At this stage itself we may observe that Mr. Ashok Gaur, counsel for the petitioners admitted, and, in our view, fairly that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar relied upon by the Single Judge has no application to the facts of the present case. In paragraph 4 of the report, the Division Bench in the case of Sur