M. R. CALLA, J. - (1.) THROUGH this writ petition the petitioner has raised the grievance against the exclusion of his name from the merit list which was prepared in December, 1988 for the purpose of appointment to the post of Senior Teacher (Teacher grade II) in the matter of selection held by the respondents. The petitioner holds qualification B. Sc. , M. A. and B. Ed. He was initially appointed as teacher grade II in Panchayat Samiti, Bassi on 18. 11. 1985 and by the time recruitment was held for appointment for the post of Senior Teacher in accordance with the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules 1971 he had already gained teaching experience for more than three sessions. Under the Rules of 1971 the Government had issued general instructions which were published in the Shivira (Shiksha Vibhag Rajasthan) 1986 and the relevant portion thereof has been placed on record as Annexure-2 The notice inviting applications dated 9/6/88 Annexure-3 was issued by the respondents and the petitioner applied in response thereto for the post of Senior Teacher in the prescribed form through proper channel, his application was forwarded by the Vikas Adhikari Bassi to the Secretary Zila Parishad Jaipur and the Secretary Zila Parishad, Jaipur in turn forwarded this application to the Joint Director Educ-ation (Male) Ajmer Range Jaipur vide the letter dated 16. 7. 88. The merit list was placed on the notice Board of the office of the Joint Director Education Male Aimer Range, Jaipur on 14/12/88. It did not contain the name of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted representation dated 20/12/88 to the Joint Director. He did not receive any reply. He thereafter made an application to the respondent Mo. 2 dated 11/1/89 for supply of the copy of the merit list. This application was returned by the Deputy District Education Officer with a remark that the petitioner should show the purpose for which he wants the copy of this merit list The petitioner has stated that he came to know from the office of the respondent No. 2 that his marks for experience of three years service had not been taken into consideration and the same had resulted into the exclusion of his name from the merit list of the selected candidates. The petitioner immediately made representation on 12-1-1989 which was forwarded by the Secretary Zila Parishad Jaipur to the Joint Director Education (Male) Ajmer Range, Jaipur with the following remarks : "i suppose they should not have been deprived of the experience advantage. Please intimate me if there was other valid reason for this deprivation. "
(2.) THE petitioner has stated that the merit list was not made available to him despite his reminder but he has come to know that he should have shown at Sl. No. 53 in the merit list but he has not been included in the merit list because 5 marks of experience had not been added. THE respondent No. 2 then took steps for filling the post of Senior Teachers which had not been taken from December, 1988 to September, 1989 because of the 'ban' against appointments imposed by the Government and thereafter in September, 1989 when the petitioner found that the posts of Senior Teachers were going to be filled, he preferred the present writ petition on 23/9/1989. No reply to the writ petition has been filed despite the fact that the writ petition was admitted on 22-1-1991 after giving a show cause notice to the respondents on 29/9/1989 as to why this writ petition may not be admitted and disposed off and several and repeated opportunities have been granted. However, Mr. K. S. Rathore, Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has argued the matter and the only submission made by him is that the petitioner could not be given the credit of five marks of experience because the certificate of experience as contained in petitioner's application in the prescribed form signed by the Vikas Adhikari was not counter signed by the District Education Officer and in absence of such counter signature the petitioner's entitlement for the marks of experience was not entertained and consequently the petitioner did not stand in the merit. I have heard Mr. Ashok Gaur for the petitioner and Mr. K. S. Rathore for the respondents and have also gone through the record available. Para 9 of the document Annexure-2 reads as under: ***************** Thus, it is clear that the petitioner who had gained teaching experience in the school under Panchayat Samiti for three sessions was entitled to five marks and in order to avail this credit of five marks relating to experience the petitioner produced the certificate of experience since 18/11/1985 signed by the concerned Vikas Adhikari. It is not the petitioner's case that this certificate was duly counter signed by the District Education Officer but Mr. Gaur appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the condition No. 2 i. e. the general condition relating to appointment as mentioned in the notice inviting application Annexure-3 which reads as under : ***************** The condition shows that the certificates were required to be counter signed by the competent officer where it was necessary. Mr. K. S. Rathore has placed before me the original application of the petitioner and having perused the form, I found that there is no indication in the prescribed form in which certificate was required to be given and which was given by the petitioner that this certificate regarding teaching experience must be counter signed nor there is any indication at any place in the prescribed form with regard to counter signature nor there is any such column for counter signatures by the District Education Officer. I called upon Mr. K. S. Rathore, who was assisted by an officer of the Education Department to let this Court know as to how and under what clause of any instructions or rules it was necessary to get the experience certificate counter signed by the District Education Officer and for this purpose he submitted that a day's time may be given and the order be dictated on the next day, the time was granted yesterday but even today Mr. Rathore has failed to explain the same and I am of the considered opinion that there is no requirement through any rule, instruction or otherwise contained in the notice inviting application or the Annexure-2 or in the prescribed form in which the application was required to be given for such certificate to be counter signed by the District Education Officer, moreover, it could not be expected from the District Education Officer to counter sign the experience certificate with regard to the teachers who were working under the several Panchayat Samities as the office of the District Education Officer cannot be expected to be equipped with the record of the various Panchayat Samities under his jurisdiction. In any case I find that there is no dispute in the facts of this case that the petitioner had a teaching experience of more than three academic sessions and, therefore, his honest and just claim could not be defeated by the respondents on such a technical plea which too is not borne out from the contents of any of the documents or otherwise. In such matters of opportu-nities relating to employment or for better employment, we have to look to the matter of substance and not the form. The right of the fair consideration of subjects of the State who are its own employees cannot be allowed to suffer casualty on such hyper-technical ground and I am of the considered opinion that in such case the right of an individual must be upheld as against the objections rather excuses which are taken to exclude a candidate of higher merit. Had the credit of five marks relating to teaching experience been given to the petitioner he would have been in the merit list and this factual position has not been disputed. In this view of the matter, I hold that the petitioner's name should have been there in the merit list which was prepared in the year 1988 and he should have been appointed on that post alongwith the other candidates who had been so appointed on the basis of the merit-list which was prepared with reference to the selections held in the year 1988. Mr. Ashok Gaur appearing for the petitioner has informed during the course of arguments that the petitioner again appeared in the selection for appointment on the post of Senior Teacher lateron and he was selected in the session 1989-90 and he is continued as Senior Teacher on the basis of the selections held in the latter year and he, therefore, submitted that the relief may be granted to the petitioner by ante dating his appointment as Senior Teacher from the date on which the candidates of 1988 batch were appointed and the petitioner may be granted all consequential benefits. The prayer of Shri Gaur appears to be just and proper and deserves to be accepted. I accordingly allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to ante date the petitioner's appointment as Senior Teacher from the date on which the other candidates recruited in the year 1988 were appointed and to assign seniority to the petitioner according to his merit on the basis of selections held in the year 1988 after awarding five marks to the petitioner for teaching experience and to give him all consequential benefits including financial benefits from the date on which the other persons of 1988 batch were appointed as Senior Teachers. The directions as contained in the aforesaid order shall be carried out as early as possible but in no case later than three months from the date the certified copy of this order is made available to the respondents. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. .;