JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the Primary School at Barani Khurd in the grade 40-1-50, temporarily by the Panchayat Bhopalgarh, by its order dated February 4, 1960. Her services were terminated on May, 1964. On August 8, 1964, Panchayat Samiti, Dhorimana, appointed her afresh as a temporary teacher in the grade of Rs. 75-4-95-5-160 and she was posted in the Primary School at Kundawa and an appointment order to that effect was issued by the Vikas Adhikari of the aforesaid Panchayat Samiti. She was subsequently transferred from Kundawa to the Primary School at Piparali, and her case is that she worked in the capacity of a teacher in that school upto May 26, 1969. According to the petitioner, her services were terminated by an order issued by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Dhorimana on 25.5.69 (Ex. 3), which stated that the Secretary, District Establishment Committee Barmer, by his letter dated 16.5.1969, had intimated that the temporary appointment of the petitioner had not been extended beyond 16.5.69. The petitioner's case is that she was a quasi-permanent employee, having worked for almost five years and she was also allowed her annual grade-increments year after year by the Panchayat Samiti Dhorimana. The grievance of the petitioner is that her services could not have been terminated by the order Ex.3, on account of the provisions of Rule 23 A of the Rajasthan Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules"), which were, according to the petitioner, made applicable to her by virtue of the provisions of Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis & Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Service Rules").The petitioner has submitted that she was qualified for appointment to the post of a teacher in a Primary School, as she had passed "Bhasha Ratna" Examination of the Bombay Hindi Vidhya Peeth in February, 1961. According to the petitioner, by the order of the State Government dated October 31, 1960 (Ex. 8), that examination was equated with Matric in regard to the standard of Hindi. She has also relied upon a letter of the Board of Secondary Education dated January 21, 1969 (Ex.9), according to which the Board has recognised Hindi Bhasha Ratna Examination of the Bombay Hindi Vidhya Peeth for the purposes of appearing at the High School Examination in English. She has also relied upon a letter of the Board of Secondary Education dated January 21, 1969 (Ex.9), according to which the Board has recognised Hindi Bhasha Ratna Examination of the Bombay Hindi Vidhya Peeth for the purposes of appearing at the High School Examination in English. The petitioner has further relied upon a seniority list issued by the Education Department of the State Government in respect of teachers appointed form September 1, 1961, upto June 30, 1966. The petitioner's grievance is that she was treated as a permanent employee by the State Government and as such, the aforesaid seniority list Ex. 10 issued by the Education Department of the State included her name and yet the Panchayat Samiti has terminated her services by the order Ex.3, considering her to be a temporary employee, although her services could have been terminated only in the circumstances and the manner applicable to a permanent employee. The petitioner has also complained that respondents Nos. 4 and 5, who were also equally qualified and temporary teachers like the petitioner and were junior to her were being still retained in service, although the petitioner's services have been unlawfully terminated. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying that the order of termination of her services (Ex. 3) be quashed. 2. The Panchayat Samimiti, Dhorimana has filed a reply contesting the writ petition and in the first place, submitted that the petitioner was a temporary employee and that extension in respect of her temporary employment was granted from time to time with the prior concurrence of the Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission", but as the District Establishment Committee and the Commission refused to extend the temporary employment of the petitioner under Rule 23 of the Service Rules, beyond May 16, 1969, her services could not be continued further by the Panchayat Samiti. The second submission of the respondent No. 1 is that the petitioner was not qualified to hold the post of a teacher in a Primary School as she was not a matriculate, which was the minimum qualification prescribed for the post in respect of female teachers after the amendment introduced by the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Service (Amendment) Rules, 1967, which came into force with effect from November 30, 1967. The further submission of the respondent No. 1 is that Rule 23-A of the Rules or for that matter, the Rajasthan Service Rules were not applicable to the case of the petitioner and further as the petitioner was not qualified and was not appointed after consultation with the Commission, she could not avail of the benefit of Rule 23-A of the Rules. 3. Mr. Mardia, learned counsel for the petitioner, made the following submissions: (1) That the petitioner having worked as a temporary teacher in the service of the Panchayat Samiti, Dhorimana continuously for a period of more than three years, she became a quasi-permanent employee within the meaning of Rule 23-A (2) of the Rules read with Rule 34 of the Service Rules and, therefore, her services could not have been terminated without following the procedure applicable to the removal of permanent employees. (2). That even if the provisions of Rule 23-A (2) of the Rules were not applicable to the petitioner, still she should have been given one month's notice or the sum equivalent to one month's salary under Rule 23-A (1) of the Rules and as the same has not been done, the order of termination of her services is illegal. (3). That the petitioner was appointed on August 8, 1964, as a temporary teacher but the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were appointed on that post on July 13, 1966 and August 10, 1965 respectively and were thus junior to the petitioner yet the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were continued in the service of the Panchayat Samiti, but the service of the petitioner were unlawfully terminated. His grievance is that the petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination in as much as persons junior to her have been retained in service by the Panchayat Samiti, while terminating her services. (4). That the petitioner was fully qualified to hold the post of a teacher of a primary school and the provisions of Rule 18 & 23 of the Service Rules have been violated. 4. I will consider these submissions seriatum. 5. (4). That the petitioner was fully qualified to hold the post of a teacher of a primary school and the provisions of Rule 18 & 23 of the Service Rules have been violated. 4. I will consider these submissions seriatum. 5. As regards the first submission, it will be necessary to examine some of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Service Rules Section 86 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") provides for the constitution of a Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service; which is divided into different categories of posts and each category is further sub-divided into different grades. One of the categories mentioned therein is that of primary school teachers. It is further provided that appointments to the service will be made either by direct recruitment or by promotion or by transfer, and that appointments by direct recruitment will be made by the Panchayat Samiti from out of the persons selected by the Commission in accordance with the Service Rules. The proviso to sub-section (8) of the Act provides that in case no such selection by the Commission has taken place or no person so selected is available at any time. Temporary appointments can be made for a period not exceeding six months, of a person not so selected. It further provides that the period of such temporary service may be extended only in consultation with the District Establishment Committee. Sub section (2) of section 88 provides that the District Establishment Committee, in accordance with the Service Rules, regulate the mode of and recommend persons for temporary appointments under the second proviso to sub section (8) of section 86. Section 79 provides that the State Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 79, the State Government framed the Service Rules, in which the procedure for direct recruitment is prescribed in rules 15 to 19. Section 79 provides that the State Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 79, the State Government framed the Service Rules, in which the procedure for direct recruitment is prescribed in rules 15 to 19. Rule 23 of the Service Rules provides for temporary appointments, and the relevant sub-rules thereof are as under Rule 23: "(1) In case no selection has been made or no person selected by the Commission is available at any time, for filling a vacancy appointment may be made by the Appointing Authority temporarily for a period not exceeding six months, provided the filling up of the vacancy is required emergently and a certificate to the effect that no selected candidate is available has been obtained from the Committee. xx xx xx xx "(4). The period of such temporary appointment may, however, be extended beyond six months, only with the previous concurrence of the Committee." "(5). The temporary appointment made under this Rule shall not be continued for a period exceeding 12 months without the prior concurrence of the Commission." Rule 34 of the Service Rules provides that except as provided in those Rules and until such time as separate Rules are framed on any or all of these matters, the pay, allowances, pension, leave and other conditions of service of the members of the Service shall be regulated mutatis mutandis by the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and the Rajasthan Travelling Allowance Rules. One more provision may be noticed here and it is sub-rule (i) of rule 2 of the Service Rules where in 'Member of the Service' is defined as a person appointed substantively to a post in the service under the provisions of the Service Rules. It may also be noticed that by notification dated January 8, 1969 clause (i) of rule 2 was amended and the word "substantively" was deleted. The qualification in respect of various categories of posts are mentioned in the Schedule appended to the Service Rules. Item No. 2 relates to Primary School Teachers and the qualification for direct recruitment to those posts is mentioned as "Matric Trained" or "Matric". The qualification in respect of various categories of posts are mentioned in the Schedule appended to the Service Rules. Item No. 2 relates to Primary School Teachers and the qualification for direct recruitment to those posts is mentioned as "Matric Trained" or "Matric". It was also provided that the minimum qualification for direct recruitment in respect of women candidates would be Middle Standard or condensed course of training conducted by the institutions recognised by the State Government or the Central Government. However, the last mentioned special provision, pertaining to women candidates, was deleted by the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Service (Amendment) Rules, 1967 which came into force on November 30, 1967. Thus the minimum qualifications prescribed for female teachers was also matriculation, as was for male primary school teachers, after November 30, 1967. Yet another amendment was made by the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Service (Amendment) Rules, 1969, which were published by notification dated January 7, 1969 in Rajasthan Gazette, Extra Ordinary of January 8, 1969 and the minimum qualification for direct recruitment in respect of women candidates was prescribed thereby as matric or any other qualification declared equivalent to matric by the Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan. 6. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that because she was in continuous service of the Panchayat Samiti for a period of more than three years, she was entitled to the benefit of sub rule (2) of Rule 23-A of the Rules. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 contends that as the services of the petitioner were extended for a specified term upto May 16, 1969, the same could have been further extended only under the second proviso to sub section (3) of section 86 of the Act read with section 88 (2) and sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 23 of the Service Rules, with the prior concurrence of the commission and the District Establishment Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee") and as the Commission and the Committee refused to extend the period of the temporary employment of the petitioner beyond May 16, 1969, the provisions of rule 23-A of the Rules were not attracted to such a case. 7. I have considered the rival contentions. 7. I have considered the rival contentions. The petitioner was employed as a teacher in a primary school by the Panchayat Samiti, Dhorimana in a temporary capacity by the order Ex. 1. This temporary employment of the petitioner could not have exceeded beyond a period of six months, due to the first proviso to section 86 (8) of the Act read with rule 23 (1) of the Service Rules. The period of such temporary employment of the petitioner, beyond the period of six months, could have been extended only with the previous concurrence of the Committee and beyond the period of twelve months with the prior concurrence of the Commission, in view of the provisions of sub-rules (4) and (5) of the Service Rules. The provisions of Rule 23 have been made by the State Government, under section 79 of the Act, to regulate the mode and duration of temporary appointments made under the second proviso to section 86 (8) and section 88 (2) (a) of the Act. As the Commission and the Committee had concurred in extending the temporary appointment of the petitioner only upto May 16, 1969 and as the temporary appointment of the petitioner was to continue upto that date only, subject to the prior concurrence of the Committee and the Commission for further extension thereof, her appointment stood automatically terminated on that date, as no such concurrence for her retention in temporary employment beyond May 16, 1969 was given by the Commission and the Committee. Moreover, as has been pointed out above, the qualification in respect of the post of a teacher in a primary school stood amended with effect from November 30, 1967 and the petitioner who had only passed middle examination, was not qualified for appointment to the said post after the aforesaid date. The submission of Mr. Mardia, that on the basis of the documents Ex. 8 and Ex. 9 the petitioner should be considered to be qualified for the post of a teacher, as "Bhasha "Ratan" Examination of the Bombay Hindi Vidya Peeth, which she passed in February, 1961, was equated to the matriculation examination, when closely examined, does not appear to be well founded. Mardia, that on the basis of the documents Ex. 8 and Ex. 9 the petitioner should be considered to be qualified for the post of a teacher, as "Bhasha "Ratan" Examination of the Bombay Hindi Vidya Peeth, which she passed in February, 1961, was equated to the matriculation examination, when closely examined, does not appear to be well founded. It may be noticed that the order of the State Government dated October 31, 1960 (EX.8) clearly stated that the recognition of "Bhasha Ratan" was only in regard to the standard of Hindi prescribed in the equivalent examination and that it would not be treated as equivalent to full fledged certificate and or degree of the examination to which it has been equated. The letter of the Secretary of the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan (Ex. 9) relied upon by the petitioner is also of the same tenor in as much as it only conveys the recognition by the Board of Secondary Education of the "Bhasha Ratan" Examination for the purposes of appearing at the High School Examination in English only. A perusal of these two documents makes it amply clear that "Bhasha Ratan" Examination of the Bombay Hindi Vidhya Peeth has not been considered as equivalent to full fledged matric examination and the minimum qualification which was required for direct recruitment in respect of female candidates of matric, which necessarily means full fledged matric or equivalent thereto. The petitioner cannot be considered to fulfil the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post of a primary school teacher, after September 30, 1967, when the prescribed qualification was amended. A person who has passed the matric examination in one subject only cannot be held to have passed the matric examination. As such the petitioner, on the date of the termination of her service, did not fulfil the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of a teacher of a primary school. In this view of the matter, the necessary conditions in respect of suitability regarding qualification requisite for the post was not satisfied by the petitioner. In order to obtain the benefit of the provisions of Rule 23-A (2) of the Rules she must have satisfied the test of suitability as to qualification on the date of the termination of her service. The petitioner cannot, as such, avail of the benefit of the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 23-A of the Rules. 8. In order to obtain the benefit of the provisions of Rule 23-A (2) of the Rules she must have satisfied the test of suitability as to qualification on the date of the termination of her service. The petitioner cannot, as such, avail of the benefit of the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 23-A of the Rules. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that even if sub-rule (2) of rule 23-A of the Rules was not applicable to the petitioner for the reason that she did not fulfil the minimum qualification prescribed for the post, yet the provisions of sub rule (1) of rule 23-A of the Rules should have been made applicable to her and her temporary employment could not be terminated without giving her either one month's notice or a sum equivalent to her pay for a period of one month. In making this submission, learned counsel assumes that rule 23-A of the Rules is attracted to the case of the petitioner. Rule 34 of the Service Rules makes the provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules applicable to the members of the Service mutatis mutandis. As has been seen above, the temporary employment of the petitioner could not have exceeded as period of six months under the Act and the same could have been extended only in consultation with the District Establishment Committee and the Commission. As the Commission and the District Establishment Committee had concurred in the continuance of the temporary employment of the petitioner only upto May 16, 1969, the Panchayat Samiti was unable to continue her temporary employment any further unless the Committee in consultation with the Commission gave its concurrence for such extension. Consequently the Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti, Dhorimana informed the petitioner vide Ex. 3 that the Secretary of the District Establishment Committee had intimated that the petitioner's services have not been extended beyond May 16, 1969. The petitioner has been unable to show that the Committee and the Commission had concurred in extending the period of her temporary employment beyond May 16, 1969. 3 that the Secretary of the District Establishment Committee had intimated that the petitioner's services have not been extended beyond May 16, 1969. The petitioner has been unable to show that the Committee and the Commission had concurred in extending the period of her temporary employment beyond May 16, 1969. The temporary service of the petitioner were for a specified period and were to continue only upto May 16, 1969, unless and until they were further extended by the Committee with the concurrence of the Commission and in these circumstances, in my opinion, the provision of rule 23-A (1) of the Rules could not be attracted. The petitioner as her temporary employment was to remain in force only upto May 16, 1969, was a fixed term employee and as no concurrence for the extension of her temporary service was given by the Commission, her service automatically stood terminated on May 16, 1969. Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon Senior Superintendent, R.M.S. Cochin and another v. K.V. Gopinath Sorter, AIR 1972 SC 1487 wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have interpreted the proviso to rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, which is similar to the proviso to rule 23-A (1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. Learned Counsel also relied upon Motilal v. Union of India, 1972 RLW 550 , in which the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court (1) was followed, There could be no doubt as far as the principle enunciated in the aforesaid two cases is concerned, but the difficulty is that the said principle is not attracted to the facts of the present case, in as much as it could not be made applicable to the case of a person employed for a specified period, whose services were to continue only upto a particular date. I am of the view that the provisions of rule 23-A of the Rules are not attracted to the case of the petitioner in view of the express provisions of the two provisos to section 86 (8), section 88 (2) and Sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 23 of the Service Rules. 9. I am of the view that the provisions of rule 23-A of the Rules are not attracted to the case of the petitioner in view of the express provisions of the two provisos to section 86 (8), section 88 (2) and Sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 23 of the Service Rules. 9. As regards the third submission of the petitioner's learned counsel that the petitioner was subjected to hostile discrimination, in as much as persons junior to her were kept in service while her temporary employment was terminated by the Panchayat Samiti, the respondent No. 1 has stated in its reply that the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were duly selected by the Commission in 1967 and 1966 respectively and they were qualified and trained teachers. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this score, therefore, does not stand to scrutiny, in as much as the petitioner was admittedly a temporary employee, appointed under rule 23 of the Service Rules, while the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were appointed in substantive capacity under rule 19 of the Service Rules after they were duly selected under rule 18 by the Commission. The vice of discrimination is only to the considered amongst equals or person similarly situated. As the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 stood in different types of employment they could not be said to be similarly situated and thus there was no question of any discrimination between them. As the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 are said to have been duly qualified for the post of a teacher in a primary school, at the time when they were substantively appointed to the Service, in accordance with the provisions of rule 18 and 19 of the Service Rules, any subsequent change in the qualifications prescribed in respect of female teachers in primary schools, would not have any effect on their substantive appointments. On the other hand, as the petitioner was merely a temporary employee, the subsequent change in the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post held by her, would be material for the continuance of her temporary employment. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this connection placed strong reliance upon the seniority list Ex. On the other hand, as the petitioner was merely a temporary employee, the subsequent change in the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post held by her, would be material for the continuance of her temporary employment. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this connection placed strong reliance upon the seniority list Ex. 10 issued by the Education Department of the State Government and his contention is that as the name of the petitioner is included amongst the permanent teachers in that seniority list and therefore she must be considered to be a permanent or atleast a quasi permanent teacher. In the first place; it is not the case of the petitioner in the writ petition itself that she was a permanent employee. Secondly, rule 24 of the Service Rules provides for determination of seniority amongst substantive employees. The seniority list prepared under rule 24 is to be issued by the Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad concerned and the petitioner was unable to produce any such seniority list prepared by the Panchayat Samiti in which her name might have been included. The seniority list Ex. 10 was published by Education Department of the State and it is not known as to for what purpose and in what context the said seniority list was issued. The petitioner was admittedly not an employee of the Education Department of the State and the Education Deptt. of the State was not empowered under any law to appoint her substantively to the post held by her. It may further be pointed out that the seniority list Ex. 10, does not mention that it contains the list of only substantive teachers but it appears to be a final seniority list of male and female teachers. It is pertinent to note that the word " LFkkbZ " has not been prefixed to " v/;kidksa o v/;kfidkvksa " but has been mentioned thereafter and has been prefixed to " ofj"Brk lwph " and it appears that what was intended was to issue a final seniority list as against any provisional seniority list, which might have been published earlier. In any view of the matter, mere presence of the name of the petitioner in the seniority list Ex. In any view of the matter, mere presence of the name of the petitioner in the seniority list Ex. 10 cannot make her appointment on the post of a teacher in a primary school substantive, unless she was able to show that her appointment was made in accordance with Rules 15 to 19 of the Service Rules, after selection by the Commission, which was a pre-requisite for any substantive appointment to a post included in the Service by direct recruitment. It is not the petitioner's case that she was at any time selected by the Commission and as such, she cannot be considered to be a substantive employee. Thus, the grievance of discrimination raised by the petitioner is futile. As a temporary employee she cannot reasonably compare the conditions of her service with those of substantive and confirmed employees like the respondents Nos. 4 and 5. 11. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was fully qualified and the provisions of rules 18 and 23 of the Service Rules were violated. As I have discussed above, the petitioner did not fulfil the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post of a primary school teacher on the date on which her temporary employment stood terminated, in the absence of an order of extension by the Commission. It may further be mentioned here that rule 23 of the Service Rules itself makes the prior concurrence of the Commission as a per requisite before the grant of any extension to the temporary employees appointed under rule 23. As for rule 18 of the Service Rules is concerned, it has absolutely no application to the case of the petitioner in as much as petitioner was not appointed after selection by the Commission. 12. In the result, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. *******