JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner aggrieved by his non-appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.lll in Sanskrit on the basis of his merit no.39 in the order dated 14.2.1997. It was mentioned in that order that he secured 66 rank in the merit of general candidates with 77.29% marks. However, in the note given below the said order, his name was ordered to be omitted from the list. Learned counsel submitted that there was no justification of the respondents to deny the appointment to the petitioner. The plea which they have now set up in the reply is that the petitioner did not get the certificate of his participation in the State Level Tournament of Volleyball countersigned. This cannot be a valid reason for denying him appointment in view of division bench judgement of this Court in Soni Lal Meena v. State & Anr, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1254/06 . Learned counsel submitted that in that judgement it was held by the division bench that the controversy in regard to the counter signature of the competent authority has already been decided by this Court in number of earlier judgments and since the respondents have not alleged the document to be forged or otherwise, petitioner would be entitled to bonus marks as per the certificate. Originally when the merit list was prepared, petitioner was shown to have obtained 77.29% marks in the merit list but after reduction of 3% bonus marks even for participation in the State Level Tournament, his marks were reduced to only 74.29% and resultantly his name pushed out to S.No.176A in the list of general candidates. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 3. Shri Ganesh Meena, learned Government Counsel although opposed the writ petition, but was not in a position to distinguish the judgement of division bench from the facts of this case, especially when the respondents have not disputed the genuineness of the certificate. 4. In the result, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. The respondents are directed to grant appointment to the petitioner in terms of the order already issued by them on 14.2.1997. The petitioner shall however be entitled to notional benefits for the intervening period. 5. 4. In the result, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. The respondents are directed to grant appointment to the petitioner in terms of the order already issued by them on 14.2.1997. The petitioner shall however be entitled to notional benefits for the intervening period. 5. Compliance of the judgment be within a period of three months from the date, ' copy is produced before the respondents.Writ Petition Allowed. *******