JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer under the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Service Rules, 1971 (herein after 'the 1971 Rules') vide order dated December 22, 1999. A condition of his appointment was that during his period of probation he would be required to write and pass departmental examinations before confirmation and in the event of not passing the departmental examination the petitioner would be liable to be discharged from service. 2. The Rajasthan Civil Services (Departmental Examinations) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter 'the 1959 Rules'), more particularly Rule 19 thereof provides that an employee will be given three chances to pass the Departmental Examinations in all the subjects he is required under the relevant rules of his employment. It has been provided that the employee concerned should avail the chances within three years of his becoming eligible for the examination within the same period following the first examination held under these rules. It has been further provided under Rule 19 aforesaid that during the period of three years of becoming eligible, if departmental examination is not held during any year or the employee is prevented from appearing in an examination due to reasons beyond his control (which may be certified as genuine by the Head of Department), the restriction of three chances and the maximum period of three years could be extended to the extent necessary. It has been further provided that however the extension of limits and restriction on chances to appear in the examination shall, in the case of probationers, be limited to the maximum period of probation or the extended period of probation under the respective Service Rules or condition of such appointment. 3. The petitioner was thus under an obligation to pass the departmental examination as a probationer ACTO in terms of the 1959 Rules. 4. The petitioner appeared in the departmental examination in the year 2000 but passed only five subjects out of seven subjects. Thereafter within the time period provided for in Rule 19 of the 1959 Rules he could not write and pass the remainder two papers for one or the other reason. 4. The petitioner appeared in the departmental examination in the year 2000 but passed only five subjects out of seven subjects. Thereafter within the time period provided for in Rule 19 of the 1959 Rules he could not write and pass the remainder two papers for one or the other reason. The case of the petitioner is that he was prevented for the reasons beyond his control from writing the examination as the two remainder papers within the period as provided under Rule 19 of the 1959 Rules, and that subsequently he sought to write examinations for the two remaining subjects at the departmental examination being conducted in the year 2004. He was however not allowed to write the examination. He thus continued as a probationer and was not confirmed as an ACTO. It has been submitted that therefore the writ petition was filed. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the petitioner coming before this court, on 6-5-2005, this court while issuing notice to respondents on the writ petition and stay application had directed that in the meantime the petitioner be permitted to write the two remaining papers, but the result of the said examination would be subject to the final decision of the writ petition. It is now an admitted fact that the petitioner wrote the two remaining papers in pursuance of the order dated 6-5-2005 and cleared the two back papers. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in an identical matter, in the case of Laxman Singh Rathore v. State of Rajasthan, SB Civil Writ petition No.4393/2001, decided on 4-2-2008 , this court taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner therein pursuant to interim order appeared in examination and was declared successful, held that he was thus entitled to all consequential benefits and issued direction for the purpose. It has been submitted that similarly in the case of Dhanraj v. State of Raj. [SB Civil Writ Petition No.4224/2001, decided on 15-2-2008] the petitioner therein pursuant to interim order having appeared in examination and declared successful, the respondent department was directed by this court to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner therein such as confirmation in service as ACTO and consequential benefits. It is submitted that the department has accepted the said two orders. 7. On query being put to the counsel for respondent, Mr. It is submitted that the department has accepted the said two orders. 7. On query being put to the counsel for respondent, Mr. Nikhil Similote, he has very fairly admitted that the said orders were not put to challenge and in fact have been implemented. 8. From the facts as obtain before this court, Rule 19 of the Rules of 1959 has been construed as directory and the failure to clear the departmental examinations within time prescribed not been found to be fatal by this court. That being the obtaining position, the petitioner having written the departmental examination albeit under the interim order of this court and having now passed the said examination in all seven papers he would be entitled to relief a la the relief in the cases of Laxman Singh Rathore (supra) and Dhanraj (supra). 9. The case of the petitioner cannot be processed differently or the relief allowed in similar cases denied to the petitioner. The instant writ petition therefore deserves to be allowed. Allowed accordingly. The respondents are directed to give consequential benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law.Petition allowed. *******