JUDGMENT 1. - This application has been filed under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India to vacate the interim stay order dated June 23, 1989, directing that non-petitioner No. 3 -Shri Phurkan Khan be not appointed to Administrative Services or Accounts Services, for which the test was held. 2. It is submitted by Mr. R.K. Pareek, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, that the petitioner has obtained an ex-parte stay order by placing wrong facts before this Court. It is submitted that it was alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 3 did not pass First State Examination held by RPSC for competitive examination of Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services, applications for which were invited by advertisement published in news-paper (Anx. 1). It is submitted by learned counsel that the marks sheet (Anx. R. 3/13) filed alongwith reply given on behalf of the non-petitioner No. 3 to the rejoinder, shows that that petitioner was declared successful and his Roll No. 38581 appears at internal page 15 of the above-mentioned Anx. The covering letter dated February 13, 1990 of RPSC regarding the above-mentioned marks sheet has also been produced, therefore, it shows that the petitioner had wrongly submitted before this Court and has also mentioned in his petition that non-petitioner No. 3 had not appeared in the First State test held by RPSC and had directly appeared in Second State test. The other ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is that with a view to accommodate non-petitioner No. 3, more candidates were invited to appear in the test, as generally, the ratio is kept by 1:3 but, in this case, it was raised to 1:5 to enable him to appear in the test. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that Anx. R3/14 is the marks sheet issued by RPSC, which shows that non-petitioner No, 3 secured 855 marks in the written test and 90 marks in interview. Thus, the total marks in case of non-petitioner No. 3 came to 945 marks. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that Anx. R3/14 is the marks sheet issued by RPSC, which shows that non-petitioner No, 3 secured 855 marks in the written test and 90 marks in interview. Thus, the total marks in case of non-petitioner No. 3 came to 945 marks. It is also pointed out that the non-petitioner No. 3 has secured, thus 102 more marks in the written test itself than the petitioner and question of raising any ratio of calling the candidates with a view to accommodate non-petitioner No. 3 does not arise and this allegation has also been wrongly made, on account of which, the petitioner could obtain ex-parte stay order in his favour. It is also submitted that in the final result declared by RPSC, non petitioner No. 3 stood at No. 1 in list of successful candidates. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the third ground raised by the petitioner is that non petitioner No 3 did not have required experience of five years service to enable him to appear in the category of non-gazetted employees. It is submitted that sub-clause (iii) of clause (2) of Rule 4 of Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1962 (for short, 'the Rules of 1962') lays down that the candidates should have completed not less than 5 years of service (whether officiating or substantive) on the 1st day of January next following the "last date fixed for receipt of application." It is submitted that last date for receipt of applications for the test in which the parties appeared was December 15, 1987 and, therefore, the crucial date for counting experience is January 1, 1988. It is pointed out that as is clear from Anx. R3/4 the certificate dated May 26, 1986 issued by Government of Rajasthan that non-petitioner No. 3 has worked from 7.3.79 to 28.5.84 as LDC in Secretariat and was made substantive on the post of LDC w.e.f. 27.6.81. No-Objection Certificate issued by the Government of Rajasthan dated April 2, 1983 (Anx. R3/5) shows that the non-petitioner No. 3 appeared in examination held by UPSC for post of Inspector (Central Excise) and it is mentioned in the said certificate that the Government of Rajasthan shall have no objection in relieving him if he is selected by UPSC on the above post. It is also pointed out that Anx. R3/5) shows that the non-petitioner No. 3 appeared in examination held by UPSC for post of Inspector (Central Excise) and it is mentioned in the said certificate that the Government of Rajasthan shall have no objection in relieving him if he is selected by UPSC on the above post. It is also pointed out that Anx. R3/6 dated August 2, 1986 is letter issued by Government of Rajasthan, shows that since the non-petitioner No. 3 has been selected on the post of Inspector (Central Excise) his resignation has been accepted w.e.f. May 28, 1984 and this fact may be mentioned in his service record to allow him benefit while calculating pension etc. It is further submitted by learned counsel that, thereafter, non-petitioner No. 3 appeared in the test held by Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer for the post of Naib Tehsildar, where also, he was selected for the above post. Anx. R3/7 is certificate issued by Deputy Collector, Central Excise, Collectorate, Jaipur, stating that resignation of the non-petitioner No. 3 has been accepted to satisfy the technical requirements to enable him to join another post with proper permission. It is, thus, submitted that Anx. R3/10 certificate issued by Tehsildar, Ajmer dated June 29, 1989 clearly shows all the above services, on which the non-petitioner No. 3 worked from time to time. It shows that he worked from March 7, 1979 to May 28, 1984 as LDC and, thereafter, from May 29, 1984 to October 29, 1985 as Inspector (Central Excise) and from October 13 (sic 30), 1985 till the date of issue of the certificate as Naib Tehsildar. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner was continuously in service without even break of a day and had more than five years' experience. Sub-rule (b) of Rule 208 of RSR, 1951 reads as under:- "(b) Resignation of an appointment to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether permanent or temporary, service in which counts in full or in part, is not a resignation of public service." Therefore, it is submitted that non-petitioner No. 3 was rightly held to posses required experience of five years. It is also submitted that apart from above submission, sub-rule (4) of Rule 11 of Rules, 1962 provides that decision of the Commission as to the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate for admission to any of these examinations shall be final. It is also submitted that apart from above submission, sub-rule (4) of Rule 11 of Rules, 1962 provides that decision of the Commission as to the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate for admission to any of these examinations shall be final. It is, therefore, submitted that once the RPSC has held that non-petitioner No. 3 had required experience, the petitioner cannot challenge the same. Reliance has been placed on Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University ( AIR 1976 SC 376 ) , Kavid Ratan's case (1990 Lab. I. C. 368) and P. K. Sharma v. Director, N. I. A. & another ( 1988 (2) RLR 368 ). 3. Mr. B.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, frankly admits that the ground of raising the number of candidates from 1 : 3 to 1 : 5 with a view to accommodate non-petitioner No. 3 does not survive in view of the marks obtained by him. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel that reliance cannot be placed on Anx. R3/14 the marks sheet issued by RPSC, since it was issued quite late. Moreover, the result as published in the newspaper differs and does not show that non-petitioner No. 3 was successful. I do not find any force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that merely because the marks sheet has been issued late, reliance cannot be placed on the same in view of the result published in the newspaper. It is clearly mentioned in Anx. R3/1-the result, which was published in the newspaper that the information regarding the result of the examination given by RPSC itself should be considered to be authentic. Merely because the result was not properly published in a particular newspaper, it cannot be said that the marks sheets issued by Rajasthan Public Service Commission is not reliable. It is also submitted by Mr. Yameen Khan appearing on behalf of Mr. M.I. Khan for RPSC, that RPSC did send information to concerned newspaper regarding correcting the results published by it, which was published by all the newspapers. I, therefore, do not find any reason to prima-facie disbelieve the marks sheet issued by the RPSC. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that sub-clause (b) of Rule 208 of RSR is not applicable, since the petitioner resigned from Government of Rajasthan and joined Central Government. I, therefore, do not find any reason to prima-facie disbelieve the marks sheet issued by the RPSC. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that sub-clause (b) of Rule 208 of RSR is not applicable, since the petitioner resigned from Government of Rajasthan and joined Central Government. I do not agree with this contention of the learned counsel. Merely because the non-petitioner No. 3 resigned from Government of Rajasthan for better prospects when he was selected by UPSC and again resigned to join as Naib Tehsildar in Government of Rajasthan after passing test held by Board of Revenue, Ajmer, it cannot be said that he does not possess the required experience of five years. The experience once acquired cannot be ignored. Moreover, even in sub-clause (iii) of clause (2) of Rule 4 of Rules 1962, there is no mention that the experience should be continuous. In this case, as is evident from Anx. R3/10, there is no break of even single day so far as the continuity of the service of non-petitioner No. 3 is concerned. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the reply has been filed after delay of four months, whereas, in case of Poos a Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1975 RLW 56) , it has been laid down that the reply should be filed within a period of four months. What has been held in the above mentioned authority is that the reply should be filed within reasonable time. In the particular case under consideration, it was held that four months' time was enough to file reply. The reasonableness of time required for filing reply in every case has to be judged in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case. Reply in this matter has been filed in 51/2 months' time, which I do not consider to be unreasonable I, therefore, do not find any force in this contention of the petitioner also. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that the petition itself deserves to be dismissed on the ground that several wrong facts have been mentioned in the petition and the Court has been misled to grant interim stay. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that the petition itself deserves to be dismissed on the ground that several wrong facts have been mentioned in the petition and the Court has been misled to grant interim stay. What is under consideration, at present, is application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India and this ground can be agitated only when the petition is heard for final disposal. 5. In the result, the stay order dated June 23, 1989 is withdrawn. The non-petitioner No. 2 RPSC shall be entitled to take appropriate steps as it may deem fit, keeping in view the result declared. *******