JUDGMENT 1. - This bunch of writ petitions has sought mandamus against the respondents directing them to treat the petitioners as having possessed essential qualifications for promotion. 2. The petitioners had passed the Prathama Examination conducted by the Hindu Sahithya Sammelan, Allahabad. At one time admittedly this was treated as an Examination, Rajasthan. Subsequently, on September 23, 1985, this recognition was withdrawn. 3. The controversy as to the fate of the employees who appeared at the Prathama Examination, before September 23, 1985, came up for consideration in a number of cases before this Court. This Court consistently held that the Certificate obtained before the withdrawal of recognition, was valid and that the employee would be deemed to possess necessary qualification. Amongst the various decisions, four of them which may be, referred to are these . 4. Kailash Chandra Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and others, (DBCW. Pet. No. 1758/87), decided on December 04, 1987, Mohammed Jafar v. The State of Rajasthan (DBCW.Pet. No. 1120/86) decided on April 26, 1988, Geelyaram Meena v. R.P.S.C. and others, (1991 RLR 556) and Govindram v. State of Rajasthan and others (S.B.C.W. Pet No. 160/91) decided on April 16, 1992. 5. In Mohammed Jafar's case (supra), the Division Bench held that the Certificate obtained from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, could be recognised for the purpose of considering the equivalence of this degree with the High School or Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Rajasthan Board. 6. Counsel for the State cited before me another decision of the Division Bench in Sardara Ram Dangi v. Dist. Judge, Jodhpur and another, (1990(2) RLR, 529) and submitted that this Division Bench has taken a view contrary to those which had been earlier held by this Court. Counsel contended that according to the view of this Division Bench, recognition was confined only to Hindi Examination of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag. He urged that the requirement of Rule 10(2) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986, was only for the limited purpose of Hindi. A Certificate obtained from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, could not be considered as equivalent to the necessary qualification as having passed the Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education. 7. This case is distinguishable inasmuch as the Bench was considering Rule 10(2) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. A Certificate obtained from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, could not be considered as equivalent to the necessary qualification as having passed the Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education. 7. This case is distinguishable inasmuch as the Bench was considering Rule 10(2) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. It was interpreting the aforesaid rule that the Division Bench held that the recognition was for limited purpose and was not general recognition. 8. In these cases, there is no such rule as was considered by the Division Bench in that case. It was admitted by the petitioner's counsel that the recognition was withdrawn subsequently in 1985 by the State of Rajasthan. But counsel urged, and rightly in my opinion, that all those who had passed the Examination before that date, were entitled to be treated as possessing qualification of having passed the Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board. 9. Moreover, the view I am taking in these cases is supported by the aforesaid decisions as well as many others, which I do not consider to be necessary to mention them in this judgment.In the result, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. A direction is given to the respondents to consider the petitioners for promotion to the post of L.D.Cs., within two months of the presentation of the certified copy of this judgment, in accordance with rule. *******