Pushpa Kanwar vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 22 January, 2009

                                     1

              S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.158/2009

                           Pushpa Kanwar
                                 Vs.
                      State of Rajasthan & Ors.

               Date of Order             ::        22.01.2009

              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR

Mr. Ramesh Purohit, for the petitioner.
Mr.R.L.Jangid, Addl.Advocate General for the respondents.

            Learned       counsel    for      the     parties    submits   that

controversy involved in the instant writ petition stands concluded

by   a   decision    of   this    Court       in     S.B.Civil   Writ   Petition

No.8769/2008; Smt.Vishnu Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors., decided on 21.11.2008.

            A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the

respondent-State. In para 3 of the reply, it has been stated that

the grounds raised by the petitioner stands decided by this Court

in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8769/2008; Smt.Vishnu Kanwar Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors, decided on 21.11.2008. However,

learned Additional Advocate General submits that thereafter, the

State Government has issued two notifications being notification

No.प.20(22)    पश   /2005    पर     dated      1st      January,   2009    and

notification No.श व र /प र./न य0 प 0/पब धक/18547/ 08/10 dated 2nd

January, 2009 and therefore, the respondents may be directed

to proceed in accordance with the said two notifications.

            In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed
                                      2

     in terms of the order of this Court dated 21.11.2008 passed in

     S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8769/2008, Smt.Vishnu Kanwar Vs.

     State of Rajasthan & Ors. and keeping in view the notifications

     Annexure-R/1 dated 1st January, 2009 and Annexure-R/2 dated

     2nd January, 2009, the respondents are directed to consider the

     period consumed by the petitioner 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 petitioner and also relating to the persons

     similarly situated, as far as possible within a period of 15 days

     from today by giving appointment to her, if she is otherwise

     eligible. It shall be open for the respondents to demand original

     documents and other relevant facts from the petitioner to get

     satisfied about her claim for the period relating to teaching

     experience and leave in question.



                                                   (H.R. PANWAR), J.

rp
3

S.B.CIVIL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO.321/2009
IN
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.158/2009

Date of Order :: 22.01.2009

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR

Mr. Ramesh Purohit, for the petitioner.
Mr.R.L.Jangid, Addl.Advocate General for the respondents.

Since the writ petition has been allowed, the stay

petition stands disposed of.

(H.R. PANWAR), J.

rp