JUDGMENT 1. :- Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 2. The petitioner, who is a physically handicapped person suffering from the disability of total blindness has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the grounds inter-alia that he was appointed on the post of Class-IV employee in the office of respondent No.2 (Collector, Tonk) pursuant to his name being sponsored through Employment Exchange to respondent No. 2 and the appointment order was issued to this effect on 11.06.1990 vide(Ex.1) and he joined his services w.e.f. 15.01.1990 in the office of Tehsildar, Malpura, Distt. Tonk. 3. During the course of hearing it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the number of Class-IV posts were lying vacant in the Tonk District and the name of the candidates were called from the Tonk Employment Office, Tonk by respondent No.2 for making recruitments on the said posts and as such the name of the petitioner was sponsored by the Tonk Employment Office, Tonk. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is handicapped person (totally blind), as such the petitioner was given appointment on Class-IV post in the reserved quota, which was reserved for physically handicapped persons vide appointment order dated 11.06.1990 issued by the District Collector, Tonk vide Ex.1 on the record. 4. The perusal of the said order reveals that the name of the petitioner is mentioned at serial No. 16 and it has been mentioned as Udha Lal instead of Udai Lal S/o Shri Birdha Jat, resident of District Tonk due to typographical error. 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid appointment order, the petitioner joined his duties in the office of Tehsildar Malpura Distt. Tonk w.e.f. 15.01.1990. From the date of his appointment till the date of filing of this writ petition, the petitioner had not been paid his salary. The petitioner from time to time approached to the higher authorities. On his approaching the Tehsildar, Malpura he was told that as his name had incorrectly been mentioned in the appointment order his salary Bill could not be prepared by the office of respondent No.2. The petitioner from time to time approached to the higher authorities. On his approaching the Tehsildar, Malpura he was told that as his name had incorrectly been mentioned in the appointment order his salary Bill could not be prepared by the office of respondent No.2. Thereafter the petitioner approached the non-petitioner No.2 (Collector, Tonk) personally in connection with release of his salary dues as admissible to him but instead of passing the appropriate order in this regard, he was given out to understand that since he did not fulfil the requisite qualifications prescribed under the relevant Rules, 1963 for appointment as Class-IV employee and unless relaxation in the qualification was directed by the Administrative Department of the Government of Rajasthan, the question regarding payment of his salary dues would not arise. The petitioner had been asked to make an application in this respect and accordingly one 5.3.1991 he submitted his application addressed to the Special Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 6. No sooner the discrepancy with regard to the name of the petitioner being wrongly mentioned as Udha Lal instead of Udai Lal was noticed, the same was rectified by the respondents in their records and the salary dues as admissible to the petitioner were paid. 7. It will be worthwhile to mention the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Class-IV Services (Recruitment & Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1963 "for short 'the Rules, 1963"' as well as the Rajasthan Employment of Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976 (for short "the Rules, 1976"), under which the appointment of the petitioner was made in the quota of physically handicapped persons. 8. With regard to the minimum educational qualifications for recruitment of Class-IV employees it will be relevant to refer Column 4 of Schedule-1 of the Rules 1963, which provides as under:- 9. The minimum qualification which is provided under Rules is that a candidate should have passed 5th Class from a recognised school and should also possess knowledge of Hindi in Devanagari script. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid eligibility conditions with regard to the academic qualifications of the petitioner were relaxed by the respondents vide their letter dated 28.7.1993 (Ex. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid eligibility conditions with regard to the academic qualifications of the petitioner were relaxed by the respondents vide their letter dated 28.7.1993 (Ex. 8) w.e.f. 15.1.1990 i.e. the date when the petitioner joined his services in the office of respondent No. 2, hence no dispute can be raised or agitated by the respondents at this stage in this regard, since they themselves have given relaxation to the petitioner as regards academic qualification. 11. Notwithstanding the above, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondents vide the termination order (Ex. 7) dated 18.1.1992 on the ground at since his appointment as Class-IV employee was not in accordance with the Rules of 1963, the respondents were justified in terminating his services. 12. Being aggrieved from above, the petitioner was left with no option except to approach this Court by way of the instant writ petition on 18.9.91 (sic 7). 13. The petitioner has challenged his impugned order of termination on the grounds inter-alia that since the respondents themselves had given suitable relaxation to the petitioner with regard to his academic qualifications as aforesaid, it is not open to the respondents to take a contrary stand at this belated stage and hence it is not open to the respondents to agitate that his appointment was not in accordance with the Rules of 1963. In fact the procedure laid down as per the Rules of 1963 was strictly followed and adhered to by the respondents in as much as his name was sponsored through the Employment Exchange and it was duly registered with the Employment Officer, Tonk and his name was sponsored by the said office alongwith other suitable candidates and hence it cannot be said that he had been given appointment contrary to the Rules since his candidature was duly considered alongwith other candidates and this fact is apparent from the appointment order itself as referred to above. 14. Rule-6 of the Rules of 1963 contemplates the procedure for appointment of Class-IV employees. 14. Rule-6 of the Rules of 1963 contemplates the procedure for appointment of Class-IV employees. Clause-1 of Rule-6 provides that recruitment to the service after the commencement of these Rules, shall be by the following methods:- (a) direct recruitment in accordance with Part IV of these Rules; (b) transfer of an employee from one department to another on a corresponding post; (c) by absorption of work-charged employees; (d) by absorption of part-time employees; (e) by promotion in accordance with part-V of these Rules: "Provided that nothing in these Rules shall preclude the Head of the Office from appointing officials previously in the employment of pre-reorganisation States of Ajmer, Bombay and Madhya Bharat to suitable posts mentioned in the "Schedule-1" in accordance with the Rules governing the integration of their services. Provided further that if the Appointing Authority is satisfied that suitable persons are not available for appointment by either method of recruitment in a particular year, appointment by other method in relaxation of the prescribed proportion may be made in the same manner as specified in these Rules." 15. Rule-14 in Part-IV of the Rules 1963 stipulates the procedure for direct recruitment of Class-IV employees. It provides as under:- Procedure of Recruitment: "Application for direct recruitment to the post in the service shall be invited by the Appointing Authority from the persons whose names have been registered in the employment Exchange by advertising the vacancies to be filled in, in such manner as may be deemed fit: Provided that the Appointing Authority while selecting candidates for the vacancies, may also select suitable persons for additional requirement during the course of the year." 16. The respondents on being noticed by this Court have controverted the contentions of the petitioner on the grounds inter-alia that since the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to the Rules, 1963 and since he did not posses the minimum educational qualifications as stipulated under the Rules as referred to above, the appointment of the petitioner was rightly terminated vide the impugned order dated 18.1.1992 (Ex. 7). 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the legal position on the subject. 18. 7). 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the legal position on the subject. 18. Prima-facie, I am of the considered opinion that once the name of the petitioner was sponsored through the Employment Exchange and his application alongwith those of other candidates, who were also sponsored through the Employment Exchange were duly screened in the office of respondent No. 2 and the petitioner was also interviewed alongwith other candidates mentioned in the appointment order (Ex. 1) and in pursuance of which he joined his services in the office of respondent No. 2 vide his joining report dated 15.1.1990, it is not open to the respondents at this belated stage to take contrary view of the matter by placing an interpretation on the Rules, 1963, which would not only be erroneous but also would be contrary to their own conduct since the respondents had by their own conduct, act and acquiescence permitted the relaxation of minimum academic qualifications and once having relaxed the said academic qualifications vide the order dated 28.7.93 (Ex. 8), the principle of estoppel is fully attracted to this case and it is not open to the respondents at this belated stage to take contrary view of the matter. 19. I am fortified in my observations from the judgments of the Apex; Court in the shatter of Bhagwati Prasad vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation reported in 1990 S,C. page 371 and in the matter of H.S. Puttaswamy and others, Vs. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore and others reported in 1991 S.C. page 295 as well as the judgments of this Court in the matter of Roopa Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in W.L.R. 1993 Raj. 12 page 12 and R.S.E.B. & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash Gaur reported in 1990 (1) R.L.R. page 181 as well as the D.B. judgment of this Court in the matter of Miss M.D. Omanna V Rajasthan Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited and Anr. vide D.B. Special Appeal No. 281/96 arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 444/94 dated 18.2.1997. 20. In the matter of Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral. Development Corporation (supra), the controversy which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was identical. vide D.B. Special Appeal No. 281/96 arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 444/94 dated 18.2.1997. 20. In the matter of Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral. Development Corporation (supra), the controversy which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was identical. It was held by the Apex Court that the initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications. In our view, three years' experience, ignoring artificial break in service for short period, periods created by the respondent in the circumstances, would be sufficient for confirmation. If there is a gap of more than three months between the period of termination and re-appointment that period may be excluded in the computation of the three years period. 21. Likewise in the matter of H.C. Puttaswamy and others Vs. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore and others (supra) the controversy which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was with regard to the appointments on ministerial posts made by the respondents, which were not held in accordance with the Karnataka Civil Services (Ministerial Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1966. As such the appointment of the employees of the subordinate-courts made by the respondent was quashed and set-aside. It was held by the Apex Court that in carrying out the administrative functions, he is actuated by same principles and values as those of the Court he is serving as the Chief justice. It was further held that it is not open to him to depart from the same and indeed must remain committed to the constitutional ethos and traditions of his calling. It was further observed that those who are expected to over-see the conduct of others, the public expectations do not seem to be less exacting. It was further held that it is not open to him to depart from the same and indeed must remain committed to the constitutional ethos and traditions of his calling. It was further observed that those who are expected to over-see the conduct of others, the public expectations do not seem to be less exacting. Keeping in view the length of service rendered by the appellants, it was held by the Apex Court that the circumstances of this case justify an humanitarian approach and indeed, the appellants seem to deserve justice ruled by mercy and the appeals were consequently allowed by treating the appellants as regularly appointed employees with all benefits of the past service. 22. In the matter of R.S.E.B. & ors. Vs. Om Prakash (supra), while dealing with the case of employees of the Board (R.S.E.B) permitted the petitioners to appear in the departmental examination for promotion. 23. In the matter of Roopa Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), the question which had arisen for consideration of this Court was identical. This Court while dealing with the similar controversy observed that the petitioner was appointed against a substantive vacancy after regular selection as per the rules. Since the recruitment of these persons were on regular basis and they were continuing in service for the last 4 years, this Court held that the order of termination cannot survive and the same was accordingly quashed and set-aside being not in consonance with Rule 23 (a) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. 24. In the matter of R.S.E.B. & ors. Vs. Om Prakash Gaur (supra) this Court while dealing with the case of employees of the Board (R.S.E.B.) permitted the petitioners to appear in the departmental examination for promotion from L.D.C. to Accounts Clerk on the basis of diploma treating it equivalent to degree of graduation and he was promoted as accounts clerk and then as Accountant. It was held by this Court that the Board is estopped in contending that the petitioner was not qualified to appear at the examination and consequently his reversion on the post of L.D.C. was quashed and set-aside being contrary to the principle of estoppel as stipulated in Section 115 of the Evidence Act. 25. Likewise in the matter of Mrs. M.D. Omanna Vs. 25. Likewise in the matter of Mrs. M.D. Omanna Vs. Bhumi Sahakari Vikas Bank Limited (supra) similar controversy had arisen for consideration of learned D.B. of this Court in an appeal, which was preferred against the judgment of learned Single judge of this Court dated 24.1.96 in S.B.C.W.I'.No. 444i')4. The learned D.B. of this Court while placing reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court as aforesaid disposed of the said appeal by allowing the writ application to the extent that the employee was entitled to the minimum of pay-scale available to her and her status alongwith consequential benefits shall be retained and that she should not be deprived of the same and further that she would be entitled to be considered for regularisation from the date any employee in this grade had been appointed after her appointment in the regular pay-scale. 26. With regard to the educational qualifications, it was observed by this Court that any discrepancy in this regard shall not come in her way in the matter of benefits which would be admissible to her after her regularisation in service. 27. In my view the petitioner deserves to succeed. The impugned order of termination dated 18.1.1992 vide (Ex.7) is quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits as may be admissible to him in accordance with the Rules. 28. The compliance of the said order shall be done by the respondents positively within 90 days from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.With the above directions the writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******