- (1.) The petitioner by this writ petition has sought quashment of his impugned termination order dtd.2.9.2011 while he was working on probation appointed under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Prabodhak) Rules, 2008 passed by the Additional Chief Executive Officer and Dist. Education Officer, Elementary Education, Zila Parishad, Barmer on the ground that his continuous teaching experience of 5 years as condition for said appointment on the post of Prabodhak was not fulfilled by him and the experience certificate issued by the Rajasthan Public Upper Primary School, Arat Ka Jao, Siwana, Dist. Barmer was only for the period from 23.2.2002 to 16.5.2006, which was only for 4 years, 2 months and 21 days, less than requisite 5 years.
(2.) The present writ petition has been filed on the ground of another and subsequent experience certificate obtained by the petitioner from the said Rajasthan Public School Upper Primary School, which was also later on impleaded as respondent No.4 in the present writ petition that for the period from 20.6.2006 to 30.5.2007, the petitioner obtained the training for the course of B.Ed. and has rejoined the said School from 2.7.2007 and from 2.7.2007, he is working as on the date of issuance of the said School Certificate Annex.2 dtd.14.6.2008. The petitioner is said to have undergone B.Ed. Course in one Rahmat-e-Alam College of Education, Rehmatabad- Anchidora, Anantnag, University of Kashmir during this period of 20.6.2006 to 30.5.2007.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit submitted that this Court in the case of Smt. Vishnu Kanwar and 157 Ors. V/s State of Rajasthan,2009 WLC(Raj) 186 has held that experience of B.Ed. Course can be treated at par with the teaching experience required under the aforesaid 2008 Rules for appointment on the post of Prabodhak. It was also so held in the case of Shankar Lal V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. - SBCWP No.6766/2008 - decided on 15.10.2008. The relevant portion from the two judgmetns cited at Bar are quoted below for ready reference: "Smt. Vishnu Kanwar V/s. State As a matter of fact, the break in service is the period in which the relationship of master and servant does not survive due to some positive act, either by the employee or by the employer. The period of leave due to unavoidable circumstances or to say the circumstances beyond the control of the employee or the employer cannot be treated as break in service. Similarly if the leave is sanctioned one, then that too maintains the relationship of master and servant. The period of availing sanctioned leave, thus, cannot be excluded from the term of continuous service. In view of whatever said above, all these petitions for writ are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the period consumed by the petitioner's in undergoing training necessary for appointment as Prabodhak, the period of leave sanctioned or the leave availed for the reasons beyond control as part of teaching experience acquired. The period aforesaid is also not required to be considered as break in service. As such, the respondents should act expeditiously to give effect to the select list relating to the petitioners and also relating to the persons similarly situated, as far as possible within a period of one and half month from today by giving appointment to them, if they are otherwise eligible. It shall be open for the respondents to demand original documents and other relevant facts from the petitioners to get satisfied about their claim for the period relating to teaching experience and leave in question." "Shankar Lal V/s State Suffice it to mention here that the interpretation of term "experience" under Rule 2(l) relates to promotion from one service to another or within the service from one category to another or to Senior Posts in the case a person is holding a lower post. For the purpose of promotion, the period of training is required to be taken into consideration as experience, however, the Rules are silent regarding consideration of training as experience for direct recruitment. The term "teaching experience" as interpreted under Rule 2(k), though not refers that what shall be the teaching experience, but that is quite broad. It refers inclusion of experience gained in supervisory capacity in any recognised educational institution or project as teaching experience. Meaning thereby, the teaching experience includes the experience of teaching as well as the experience gained in supervisory capacity with a recognised institution. A person undertaking training for holding a teaching post after selection to a post concerned then that certainly stands on a better pedestal for considering "teaching experience" than the experience gained in supervisory capacity. The period spent for training is already treated as part of experience under the Rules of 2008, for the purpose of promotion and, therefore, in totality of the facts and legal position as stated above, I do not find any just reason to deny the post selection training relating to a teaching post as a "teaching experience". The petitioner in view of whatever said above is certainly having a "teaching experience" of more than five years on inclusion of the training relating to post of Para Teacher. He is, thus, entitled to be considered for appointment as Prabodhak. The argument for getting relaxation with the experience too is having merit as the shortage of five days experience is due to an error of a Panchayat Raj Institution and for that the respondents while making appointment as Prabodhak with a Panchayat Raj Institution must protect the petitioner from an undue hardship. If the respondents do not extend the relaxation in experience, then the petitioner for no fault on his part shall be deprived of from his valuable right to be considered for appointment as Prabodhak. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The rejection of the petitioner's candidature on the count of lacking experience is declared illegal. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Prabodhak in District Jodhpur and appointment be accorded to him if he stands in merit and is otherwise eligible to hold the post of Prabodhak. Compliance of the directions given above is required to be made within a period of two months from today.";