JUDGMENT 1. - Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in compliance of order dated 4.7.1994, the opposite party has already been served. The receipt of service has already been filed in the office on 8th July, 1994. In spite of service, the State Government has taken no steps to contest the writ petition. The writ petition is being disposed of in the absence of any assistance from the Government Advocate. 2. The petitioner is working as a Class-IV employee and has passed Secondary examination. At present, he is posted at Government Veterinary Dispensary, Karauli. He is in service since 30.7.1984. 3. The respondent had issued an advertisement on 18.5.1994 inviting applications for sending persons for Live Stock Assistant training to be conducted at the various training centres of Animal Husbandry Department. The petitioner, who had the minimum requisite qualifications and also fulfilled other conditions for the eligibility for undergoing the aforesaid training, also applied for the said training. 4. The post of Live Stock Assistant, under the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Subordinate Service Rules, 1977 is to be filled in 25% by promotion and 75% by direct recruitment. The minimum qualification and experience for the appointment is Secondary or its equivalent in Science with Biology as subject and 9 months' training of Stockman/Compounder. Column 5 of the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1977 shows the post on which the promotion is to be made. According to it, Dresser and Laboratory Attendant can also be promoted to the post of Live Stock Assistant. The petitioner who has been working as a Dresser can be appointed as Live Stock Asstt. by promotion only after completion of nine months' training. Unless the petitioner completes this training of nine months, he cannot be treated to be eligible for appointment by promotion. 5. The petitioner's case is that in spite of the fact that he was eligible to be sent for training, his application has not been considered nor he has been permitted to join the training. Accordingly, he has filed the present writ petition for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus. 6. 5. The petitioner's case is that in spite of the fact that he was eligible to be sent for training, his application has not been considered nor he has been permitted to join the training. Accordingly, he has filed the present writ petition for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6287 of 91 Ashok Kumar Mordia v. State of Rajasthan, D/d. 20.5.92 wherein a similar controversy was decided and it was held that the petitioner of that case was entitled to be taken up for training. 7. After perusing the judgment rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Mordia (supra), I am in respectful agreement with the reasoning given therein. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondent is directed to allow the petitioner to take up the training of Live Stock assistant for the year 1994-95. The training is to commence from 1.8.1994, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and since it is a statement at the bar, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. 9. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed *******