Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred with the following prayers:- "1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent may kindly be directed to grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade III level II in the category under the respondents in District Udaipur as per her merit against the vacancies advertisement by the respondents for the post in pursuance of the advertisement in 2013; 2. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the qualification of two years certificate course of BSTC of the petitioner and consider the case of the petitioner for her selection and appointment to the post of Teacher Grade III; 3. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and the respondents may kindly be directed to treat the petitioner as eligible on all counts for the post of Teacher Grade III as the petitioner possess all the requisite qualification as per Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996 next lesser meritorious candidates to the petitioner has been granted appointment with all consequential benefits; 4. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner; 5. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."
(2.) Learned counsel for both the parties agree that the present controversy is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Trilok Ram v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B.Special Appeal Writ No. 667/2015 alongwith other analogous matters decided on 18.08.2017) , relevant paras 15 and 16 of which read as under:- "15. The academic qualifications prescribed by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 266 were neither expanded nor qualified by the proviso. The proviso which was inserted in the statute book on 1.7.2004 dealt with an entirely different area. It dealt with the time by which the eligibility prescribed by the Rule had to be attained in the form of the academic qualifications achieved. The amendment to Sub-rule (3) was necessitated on account of subsequent legislations concerning academic qualifications to be appointed as Teachers. Instant case would therefore require it to be held that the proviso was retained in the statute book and when Sub-rule (3) was substituted, it was the main Sub-rule and not the proviso thereto. Under the circumstances the condition of the advertisement being contrary to the proviso to the Rule would be illegal for the reason an executive instruction cannot supplant a Rule. 16. The writ appeals are allowed. Impugned decision by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The writ petitioners would be entitled to consequential benefits of employment given to them in light of their merit position except for back wages."
(3.) Learned counsel for both the parties further agree that the aforementioned judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court has been stayed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 20.11.2017 passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 30933/2017 (The State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Trilok Ram) .;