JUDGMENT :

SANGEET LODHA, J.

This intra-Court appeal is directed against order dated 22.1.20 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the action of the respondents in denying her appointment on the post of Physical Training Instruction (‘PTI’) Gr.III, has been dismissed.

2. The respondent-Rajasthan Subordinate & Ministerial Service Selection Board (‘the Selection Board’) issued an advertisement dated 4.5.18 inviting applications for appointment on the posts of PTI Gr.III. The eligibility qualification for recruitment to the post as mentioned in the advertisement reads as under:

^^¼1½ jk"Vªh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn~ }kjk ekU;rk ÁkIr 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk esa Lukrd ¼chŒihŒ,MŒ½ ;k 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk esa Áek.k i= ¼lhŒihŒ,MŒ½ ;k 'kkjhfjd f’k{kk esa fMIyksek ¼MhŒihŒ,MŒ½A
¼2½ nsoukxjh fyfi esa fy[kh fgUnh esa dk;Z djus dk Kku ,oa jktLFkku dh laLd`fr dk KkuA**

3. Admittedly, the appellant was not holding the qualification of B.P.Ed., C.P.Ed. or D.P.Ed. However, she was holding the qualification of Post Graduation in Physical Education (M.P.Ed.). 4. As a matter of fact, the appellant, a Graduate in Arts, was admitted to M.P.Ed. Course by the Kurukshetra University, having participated in Common Wealth Games, 2006 and other National Level Championships as Gymnast.

4. The appellant applied for appointment to the post of PTI Gr.III pursuant to the advertisement issued as aforesaid; appeared in the examination and cleared it. The appellant though selected, was not accorded appointment inasmuch as, at the time of documents verification, the respondents found that she does not have requisite qualification.

5. Precisely, the case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that she is possessing a higher qualification i.e. M.P.Ed. and therefore, her candidature could not have been rejected.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in observing that the appellant did not study the subjects, such as, Principle and History of Physical Education, Psychology in Physical Education, Anatomy, Yoga Education, Athletics (Track Events) and Knowledge of other games whereas, Physical Training Instructor who is supposed to instruct students at Primary School level is required to give basic training to the students in relation to variety of sports, including Yoga and routine exercise etc. Learned counsel submitted that a bare look at the syllabus of M.P.Ed. placed on record makes it abundantly clear that the appellant studied above subject as well. Learned counsel submitted that M.P.Ed. is certainly a higher qualification and therefore, the appellant could not have been denied appointment. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Chandrakala Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan : (2012) 3 SCC 129. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge has also erred in observing that there is no material on record to satisfy the Court as to under which provision the appellant was admitted to Post Graduation Course in Physical Education. The degree of M.P.Ed. acquired by the appellant is not doubted by the respondents and her candidature has not been rejected on this count, rather, the appellant has been denied appointment on the ground that she does not possess the requisite qualification prescribed i.e. B.P.Ed./C.P.Ed./D.P.Ed. Thus, the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that in absence of certificate issued by Director of Sports for the State Government, the appellant's Post Graduation cannot be considered in place of Graduation in Physical Education. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant was admitted to the Post Graduation Course in Physical Education inasmuch as, she participated in International Level Tournament and won First, Second and Third Rank in the sports. The appellant was admitted to the course as per the qualification prescribed by the Kurukshetra University for a