JUDGMENT 1. - These two petitions have been filed by the petitioners, being 6 in 1 number in writ petition No. 332/04, while being 2 in number in writ petition No. 525/04 Since the controversy involved in both the writ petitions is identical, they are being dealt with together. It was vide order dated 29.1.2004 that show cause notice was ordered to be issued in writ. No. 332/04, while S vide order dated 10.2.2004, show cause notice was ordered to be issued ire writ No, 525/04, Then vide order dated 10.2.2004 both the writ petitions were ordered to be listed with each other. Thereafter, the reply was filed in both the writ petitions, taking identical stand, to contest the writ petition, while in writ No. 332/04, a rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner on 23.2.2004. In 10 this sequence, the matters came up in the Court on 2.4.2004. Looking to the urgency of the matter, and the fact that the pleadings are complete, the matters were heard, with the understanding that, they are to be finally disposed of at this stage itself. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are being finally disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts of the case are, that the petitioner claimed to have applied for appointment to the posts of Sanskrit Teacher Gr. 111, in response to the advertisement No. 2/03-04, dated 10.9.2003, which is produced as Annex. 1, in each of the writ petitions. According do this advertisement, the requisite qualification for eligibility was Varishtha Upadhayay from the Secondary Board, or a qualification in education under the old scheme. However, a note was appended, that in accordance with the Division Bench judgment of this Court, the candidates possessing the qualification of M.A. In Sanskrit/Acharya, along with B.S.TC./B.Ed. having Sanskrit as optional subject in Senior Secondary, will also be eligible for the post. According to the petitioners. they have passed Senior Secondary from the Board of Secondary Education, with Sanskrit as one of the optional subjects. Thereafter, they obtained three years course degree of 'Shastri' in Sanskrit from Rajasthan University, or Mohan Lal Sukhadia University or Rajasthan Sanskrit University, etc., and then, each of them claim to have obtained a degree of Shiksha Shastri (equivalent to B.Ed.) again from University of Rajasthan, or Rajasthan Sanskrit University, or Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, or the like. Thereafter, they obtained three years course degree of 'Shastri' in Sanskrit from Rajasthan University, or Mohan Lal Sukhadia University or Rajasthan Sanskrit University, etc., and then, each of them claim to have obtained a degree of Shiksha Shastri (equivalent to B.Ed.) again from University of Rajasthan, or Rajasthan Sanskrit University, or Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, or the like. Thus, according to the petitioners, they are possessing the qualification of Senior Secondary with Sanskrit, and a degree of Shastri, which is qualification, much higher than the qualification of Upadhyay or Varishtha Upadhyay, and also possess the qualification of Shiksha Shastri, which is equivalent to B.Ed. Therefore, they are eligible to be considered for appointment. It is also contended, that according to pare 9 of Annex 1, for the purpose of deciding merit, the marks obtained, in Varishtha Upadhyay/Upadhyay/Senior Secondary, Higher Secondary or equivalent examination are to be computed to the extent of 75% and for train:rig examinations (STC or B.Ed.) 25% marks are to be computed, and since the petitioners possess both these qualifications, their marks are required to be computed, for deciding their merit, and they are entitled to be appointed on the post. It is then alleged, that notwithstanding this, under the garb of Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 13.1.97, the candidature of the petitioners is not being considered. Demand of justice has yielded no results, hence prayer has been made to direct the respondents to invite the petitioners for interview, and to consider the petitioners for selection on the post, if they come in the merit list, prepared for the Sanskrit Teachers. Various other identical reliefs have also been claimed. 3. In reply filed in writ No. 332/04, a copy of the Division Bench judgment of this Court, being in bunch of special appeals, led by D.B. Special Appeal No. 920/1996 (Prem Narain v. State of Rajasthan) decided on to 13.01.1997 , has been annexed, and a stand has been taken to the effect, that the petitioner No. 1 does fulfil the eligibility for the appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. H, and the other petitioners do not. It was alleged that the petitioner No. 1 did not come in the merit of the select list, as the last selected person, for the post of Teacher Gr. Ill Sanskrit is- having 64.74% marks while the petitioner No. 1 is having 59.82% marks. H, and the other petitioners do not. It was alleged that the petitioner No. 1 did not come in the merit of the select list, as the last selected person, for the post of Teacher Gr. Ill Sanskrit is- having 64.74% marks while the petitioner No. 1 is having 59.82% marks. Likewise, in writ No. 525/04 also, it was pleaded that the petitioner No. 1 does fulfil the eligibility, but was not called for interview because she did not compete in the merit, as the marks obtained by her were only 57.95%. The eligibility of the other petitioners was denied. Regarding ineligibility of the other petitioners, the plea taken is, that the basic qualification for appointment on the post of Teacher Cr. III Sanskrit is, Varishtha Upadhyay STC Shiksha Shastri/B.Ed. and in accordance with the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 13.1.97, candidates having qualification of Senior Secondary with Sanskrit STC/B.Ed./Shiksha Shastri, higher qualification like M,A. Sanskrit only are eligible, obviously respondents meant to contend that since the ineligible petitioners did not possess the qualification of Varishtha Upadhyay, they are not eligible. 4. In rejoinder filed in writ No. 332/04 it is contended that calling the persons possessing qualification of M.A. in Sanskrit only on the basis of the judgment in Prem Narain's ease, is a wrong interpretation of judgment as in that case, this Court has only directed to consider the case for appointment of the persons, who were having qualifications like that of M.A. in Sanskrit, and that the respondents are misinterpreting the judgment. Then, it was pleaded that the petitioners are more qualified than the persons possessing qualification of Varishtha Upadhyay and M.A. in Sanskrit apart from the fact, that for determination of marks of eligibility, 75% marks are to be computed for the qualifications of Varishtha Upadhayay/Upadhyay, as well as Senior Secondary/Higher Secondary or equivalent examination, which means, that the persons having qualification of Senior Higher Secondary with Sanskrit as optional subject with B.Ed, are also eligible to be considered for appointment, and since the petitioners being highly qualified in Sanskrit education, they are also eligible to be considered. 5. Reliance is placed by learned counsel on a judgment of this Court, in the case of Vinay Kumar Swami v. State of Raj. & Ors., reported in 2000 (2) RLR 749 . 6. 5. Reliance is placed by learned counsel on a judgment of this Court, in the case of Vinay Kumar Swami v. State of Raj. & Ors., reported in 2000 (2) RLR 749 . 6. During course of arguments, the same respective pleadings have been reiterated, as their respective submissions. 7. I have considered the submissions, have gone through the pleadings, and the relevant material. 8. At the outset, I may deal with the judgment of this Court dated 13.1.97, in Prem Narain's case. A look at that judgment would show, that at page 8, it was noticed, that the State Counsel stated at the bar, that the State Government is contemplating to modify the Rules, by prescribing the qualifications for Sanskrit teachers, and it was expected, that it is high time that the State Government, if it wants to amend the Rules, may do it at the earliest possible, to avoid such type of litigation's, and then, in the end, it was directed. that till the Rules are amended, the appellants therein, who are otherwise highly qualified with Sanskrit subjects can be considered for the future posts till the amendment of the Rules. Then it was held, that even though, no direction can be given in this regard, but keeping in view the qualifications of the appellant petitioners, some of the whom, are even M.A., in Sanskrit, the State Government may consider these qualifications for recruitment to the Sanskrit Teachers in future till the statutory rules are amended. In my humble opinion, this judgment has not laid down even according to the observations made in the judgment, that the person possessing qualification of Senior Secondary along with Sanskrit as optional subject. and having the qualification of M.A. in Sanskrit, only with B.Ed. was intended to be eligible, rather the consideration that prevailed was, "petitioners who are otherwise highly qualified with Sanskrit subjects" and then while giving directions to consider, again it was mentioned "but keeping in view the qualifications of the appellant petitioners, some of whom are even M.A. in Sanskrit." Thus, obviously, the petitioners therein included candidates having qualification lesser than M.A. in Sanskrit as well, rather as appear from the facts noticed at page 3, that the petitioners were holding, the qualification, i.e. either Shiksha Shastri, Secondary, Higher Secondary, B.A. or even M.A. with Sanskrit subjects. In that- view of the matter, the interpretation being put by the respondents on the judgment dated 13.1.97, cannot be supported at all, and in view of the petitioners possessing the qualification of Senior Secondary with Sanskrit subject, and also possessing higher qualification in Sanskrit, being that of three years course of Shiksha Shastri, along with B.Ed., cannot be said to be ineligible. This is one aspect of the matter. 9. The other more important aspect of the matter is, that all the petitioners. in both the writ petitions, have produced the copies of the documents, showing their qualifications, and they are, Senior Secondary with Sanskrit as optional subject. Shastri, and Shiksha Shastri. Thus, the qualifications, of each of the 8 petitioners, in both the writ petitions, is at par. In that background, as noticed above, even according to the respondents, the two petitioners, being petitioner No. 1 in either of the writ petitions, are considered to be eligible for appointment, and have riot been called for interview, only because they did not stand in merit, as one secured 59 82% marks and the other secured 57.94% marks, while the cut off point up to which the candidature was considered was 64.75%. 10. That being the position, on the face of the documents of qualifications produced by all the petitioners, in absence of any specific pleading on the part of the respondents, as to what is the distinguishing feature, to distinguish the other petitioners, from petitioner No. 1 in either of the writ petitions, in view of the fact, that petitioner No. 1 is being considered to be eligible, there is no escape from the conclusion, that the other petitioners are also required to be held to be eligible, straight way or the basis of the admissions made by the respondents, in both the writ petitions, about eligibility of the petitioner No. 1. 11. In view of the above discussion, since the petitioners No. 1, in either writ petitions, did not stand in the merit, they are not entitled to any relief, and their writs are required to be dismissed. However, the other six petitioners, being petitioner No. 2 to 6 in writ No. 332/04, and petitioner No. 2 in writ No. 525/04, are required to he directed to be considered for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. However, the other six petitioners, being petitioner No. 2 to 6 in writ No. 332/04, and petitioner No. 2 in writ No. 525/04, are required to he directed to be considered for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III Sanskrit, by computing their merit, on the basis of the marks obtained in the relevant qualifications in accordance with pars, 9 of Annex. 1, and in case, are found to have secured marks, to the extent of marks, up to which the last candidate has been given appointment, in the category, to which the respective petitioner belongs, the respective petitioner shall be given appointment. 12. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are partly allowed in the manner that the petitions, so far they relate to petitioner No 1 are dismissed. However, both the writ petitions, so far they relate to petitioners No. 2 to 6 and to petitioner No. 2 respectively, are allowed; and it is directed, that their merit be considered, on the basis of marks obtained by them in the is respective qualifications, as provided in pare 9(1) of the advertisement and if they are found to have secured marks, more than the marks, obtained by the last candidate, in the category to which the respective petitioner belongs, and who had been given appointment. that petitioner shall also be given appointment. It is further directed, that this exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from today. In case, the appointment is given, the concerned petitioner shall be entitled to notional seniority, w.e.f. the date, on which the candidates securing marks, lesser than him, have been appointed. However, no pay and emoluments shall be payable till the date of joining. 13. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. *******