Hon ble RATHORE, J.—Since in all these writ petitions the selection process as well as non-consideration of the petitioners on the post of Prabodhak is under challenge, therefore, the same are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The petitioner has applied for the post of Prabodhak pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.05.2008 issued by the respondents. As per the advertisement, the basic qualification required for recruitment on the post of Prabodhak is Senior Secondary and B.S.T.C. or B.Ed. or equivalent to it. Beside qualification, the candidate should have continuous 5 years teaching experience without any break from the recognised educational institute and the experience certificate should be countersigned by the concerned District Education Officer.

3. I have heard learned counsels appearing for the respective petitioners, learned AAG Mr. S.K. Gupta and carefully gone through the relevant provisions of law and the other material available on the record.

4. As per the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 (for short the Rules of 2008), the term “teaching experience” has been defined in Rule 2(k) of the Rules of 2008, which reads as under:-

“2. Definitions.- In these rules unless the context otherwise requires,-

(a)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

(k) “Teaching Experience” for the purpose of direct recruitment includes the experience gained in supervisory capacity in any recognised educational institution of project;

“Service” or “Experience” wherever prescribed in these rules as a condition for promotion from one Service to another or within the Service from one category to another or to senior posts, in the case of a person holding a lower post eligible for promotion to higher post shall include the period for which the person has continuously worked on such lower post after regular selection in accordance with rules promulgated.

5. In majority of the writ petitions, the candidature of the petitioners was not considered on account of lack of requisite teaching experience as required under Rule 2(k) of the Rules of 2008.

6. In the case of Smt. Vishnu Kanwar vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (SBCWP No. 8796/2008), the petitioners who were serving as Para Teachers faced the process of selection for appointment as Prabodhak under the Rules of 2008 and their names figures in select list, however, appointments to them were withheld because of interruption in continuous service or because of lacking teaching experience due to leaves availed by them. In all the petitions, the case of the petitioners was that whatever interruption in service exists i.e. because of undergoing training required for Para Teachers or because of availing leave due to unavoidable circumstances. In some of the cases, the leave may not be because of unavoidable circumstances, but was for a quite short period and i.e. sanctioned one.

7. In the aforesaid case of Smt. Vishnu Kanwar (supra), the co-ordinate Bench of the Jodhpur High Court has considered the ratio decided in the case of Shankar Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and others (SBCWP No. 6766/2008, decided on 15.10.2008), wherein this Court has considered the issue relating to the consideration of the period of training undertaken by the persons appointed as Para Teacher as part of teaching experience and observed as under:-

“Under the Rules of 2008 the term “teaching experience” is defines as follows:-

2(k) “Teaching Experience” for the purpose of direct recruitment includes the experience gained in supervisory capacity in any recognised educational institution of project.”

The term “service” or “experience” is also defined under the Rules of 2008 in following terms:-

2(1)“Service” or “Experience” wherever prescribed in these rules as a condition for promotion from one Service to another or within the Service from one category to another or to senior posts, in the case of a person holding a lower post eligible for promotion to higher post shall include the period for which the person has continuou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document