JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by rejection of his (her) candidature for appointment on the post of Sanskrit Teacher Grill. Petitioner applied for such appointment pursuant to advertisement issued by the respondents on 25.2.2004. By the said advertisement, applications were invited for appointment against 176 posts of Nursing Teacher. Petitioner was called for interview on 25.9.04. The respondents prepared select list on 25.12.2001 (sic) in which name of the petitioner was included. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner secured 67.20% marks in the OBC Category (Female) and as per the merit. However appointment was not given and the candidature of the petitioner was rejected and persons with lesser merit were appointed. Reference was made to the cases of Sangita Saini, Sarita Kumar, Smt. Saroj, Manju Kumari, Suman Kumari, Smt. Saroj W/o Ram Niwas, Kumari Neeta and Kumari Seema, all of whom secured lesser merit than the petitioner and yet they were appointed. One of the candidates Kumari Seema, who is immediately below than the petitioner in merit with 66.62% marks has been impleaded as respondent no.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondents have illegally rejected the candidature of the petitioner. Now raising the issue that she did not pass the Mathematics which was one of the necessary requirements for eligibility and that she secured only 25% marks whereas the minimum passing marks were 33, learned counsel referred to the mark sheet of her Sr. Secondary School and submitted that she passed this qualification from Board of School Education, Haryana and as per the clarification issued by Superintendent of Haryana School Education Board according to scheme of examination in that State, if out of six subjects, a candidate has failed to qualify Mathematics and has cleared other five subjects, he is declared pass. Learned counsel submitted that as per the division bench judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Smt. Vimala Doongarwal, 1998 WLC (Raj.) (UC) page 174 , if the rules did not require Mathematics as one of the necessary subjects, the respondents by their executive instructions cannot superimpose such conditions. Learned counsel submitted that as per the division bench judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Smt. Vimala Doongarwal, 1998 WLC (Raj.) (UC) page 174 , if the rules did not require Mathematics as one of the necessary subjects, the respondents by their executive instructions cannot superimpose such conditions. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in Dinesh Singh & Ann v. RSEB & Ors., 2003 (4) WLC (Raj.) 457 and argued that appointment cannot be denied merely because the candidate did not pass secondary or higher secondary examination from State of Rajasthan. It was submitted that the petitioner is far more qualified than just secondary school pass. She has passed Sr. Secondary School in 1996 and thereafter she passed B.A. Examination in Sanskrit in 2002 from MDS University and M.A. also in Sanskrit with the same University in 2004. Petitioner has passed B.Ed. with Sanskrit as one of the subjects also from MDS University, Ajmer. It was also argued that subsequently even she even has passed the Mathematics, which would be evident from the mark sheet dated 28.9.2004. Learned counsel submitted that coordinate bench of this Court in Smt. Geeta Patidar & Ors. v. State, 2004 WLC (Raj.) UC 780 relying on the division bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 920/1996-Prem Narain v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 13.1.1997 held that insistence of the respondents that only candidate having passed from Secondary Board of Education from Rajasthan would be eligible, cannot be accepted. Even the candidates having M.A. Sanskrit or Acharya along with BSTC and B.Ed. with Sanskrit as optional subject would be eligible. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment and if adjudged suitable, grant her appointment with consequential benefits. 4. Shri Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that case of the petitioner was duly considered but it was found that she was wrongly declared pass in secondary school examination. She did not have minimum 33 marks in mathematics subject and therefore even if she has been declared pass by the Haryana Board, her secondary school certificate cannot be treated as equivalent with that of the Board. She did not have minimum 33 marks in mathematics subject and therefore even if she has been declared pass by the Haryana Board, her secondary school certificate cannot be treated as equivalent with that of the Board. It was argued that subsequent clearance of Mathematics subject by the petitioner would not remove the lacuna in the original certificate of Secondary. Higher qualification acquired by the petitioner cannot make her eligible for appointment. Learned counsel submitted that the posts which were advertised, have all been filed up and the petitioner cannot get any relief now. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that in the Rajasthan Sanskrit Education Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1978, only secondary/equivalent qualification recognised by the Government with certificate of training is the eligibility for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.lll in Sanskrit as held by the division bench of this Court in Prem Narain. Something, which is not prescribed by the Rules, cannot be super imposed by the Government with the help of its executive instructions. But even if that aspect is not gone into, the fact remains that if the Board of Secondary Education, Haryana as per the scheme of the examination prevalent there, has declared the petitioner pass despite her failure in one of the subjects namely Mathematics and yet if the petitioner has subsequently been permitted to appear in Sr. Secondary School and thereafter by University of Rajasthan in B.A. (Sanskrit) and M.A. (Sanskrit) and B.Ed. from MDS University, Ajmer, the stand of the respondents is not treating her eligible for appointment cannot be appreciated. Even otherwise, the petitioner has subsequently cleared the subject of Mathematics. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Brijendra Kumar Jaiman v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2008 (4) WLC (Raj.) 554 recently delivered even in relation to the secondary school examination cleared in earlier point of time, improved marks secured even after clearance of graduation have been held to be countable for the purpose of determination of merit. The petitioner possessed the qualification of B.A. and M.A. both in Sanskrit, apart from that she has Sanskrit as one of the subjects in B.Ed. The petitioner possessed the qualification of B.A. and M.A. both in Sanskrit, apart from that she has Sanskrit as one of the subjects in B.Ed. As per the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Prem Narain, which was relied on by the coordinate bench of this Court in Smt. Geeta, supra, merely because petitioner has qualification of Varishtha Upadhyay from Secondary Board or Qualification in education under old scheme would not be a reason to reject his/her candidature if it is shown that he / she is otherwise qualified with Sanskrit subject and B.A. or M.A. with Sanskrit subject or Shiksha Shastri etc. T,e petitioner has been successful to show that the candidates far less meritorious than her were granted appointment and she was refused. There are as many as eight such candidates which the petitioner had named, who were having lesser merit than her in then originally prepared merit list by the respondents. Action of the respondents in withholding the appointment of the petitioner, cannot be justified. 6. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment and if she is adjudged suitable grant her appointment with effect from the date respondent no.3 Kumari Seema was so appointed. For the intervening period, however, the petitioner shall be entitled to only notional benefits though her seniority would count from the date of appointment of Kumari Seema and she would also be entitled to all the grade increments and pay revision on normal basis and any other consequential benefits as may have been granted to respondent no.3 during this interregnum.Compliance of the judgment be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.Writ Petition Allowed. *******