JUDGMENT 1. Following matters have been listed today before the Full Bench for consideration (A) D.B. Civil Writ petition No. 3248/2013 with (B) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 175/2015 with (C) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 230/2015 with (D) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 556/2015 2. So far as CWP No. 3248/2013 is concerned, the learned Single Judge on 27/4/2013 had passed the following order:- "Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has argued that earlier two division bench judgments of this Court in Tayyab Hussain v. State of Rajasthan (DB Civil Review Petition No. 22/2002) and Miss Altaf Bano v. State of Rajasthan (DB Civil Special Appeal No. 258/2004) have not been correctly appreciated in the subsequent division bench judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Firodos Tarannum 2006 (2) WLC (Raj.) 596 . Besides, learned senior counsel submitted that earlier judgments should be followed in view of subsequent developments, which the petitioners have now by way oi additional material placed on record before this Court in the present writ petition namely; subsequent instruction issued by the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan in 2007 wherein, "Adeeb" & “Adeeb Mahir" qualifications of Urdu granted by Jamia Urdu, Aligarh were treated respectively equivalent to Secondary and Senior Secondary and the order issued by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions dated 12.7.2010 certifying the fact that Jamia Urdu, Aligarh is 25 a ‘minority educational institution’ within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2001 and, therefore, covered under Article 30 of the Constitution of India There is third factor, which went un-noticed in Firdos Tarannum supra is that the State Government decided to send all such candidates 30 possessing the qualification of "Adeeb-Mahir" and "Moallium-e-Urdu respectively equivalent to Senior Secondary and B.Ed. for undertaking the Bridge Courses which the petitioners successfully completed Respondents could not have, therefore, abruptly removed the petitioners from the post of Prabodhak on which post, they are working since 2008. In view of the aforesaid three division bench judgments, it would be appropriate that this matter is laid before the Division Bench. Petitioners to file additional set of writ petition with documents. Put up on 6.5.2013 before the Division Bench." 3. In view of the aforesaid three division bench judgments, it would be appropriate that this matter is laid before the Division Bench. Petitioners to file additional set of writ petition with documents. Put up on 6.5.2013 before the Division Bench." 3. The matter having been placed before the Division Bench, the Division Bench on 1.10.2013 has passed the following order:- "The matter has been placed before us in view of the order of the ld. Single Judge dated 27.04.2013. A bare perusal of the order of the Id. Single Judge indicates that there was on occasion for the Division Bench to examine the controversy on two different point of time but certain points still missed and were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench when it came at later stage for consideration; and the Id. Single Judge, looking to the nature of controversy and the two judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in particular, considered it appropriate to refer the matter to the Division Bench which has come before us. After going through the order of the Id. Single Judge dated 27.04.2013 and the view of two earlier Division Benches of this Court, we are of the view that to resolve the controversy, it will be appropriate that the matter may be considered by the Larger Bench. Registry is directed to place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice on the administrative side for seeking appropriate order". 4. So far as the order three SAWs are concerned, it appears that the same were heard by the other Division bench which passed the following order on 8.7.2015:- “These Special Appeals arise out of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, by which he has dismissed the writ petitions, for the prayers that petitioners are holding the certificate of Adeeb, issued in the year 2008, and Adeeb-e-Mahir, issued in the year 2010, by the Jamio Urdu, Aligarh, alleged to the equivalent to Secondary Examination, and Senior Secondary Examination respectively, conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, for appearing in the Health Worker (Female), 1st Year Examination, 2015, scheduled to be held from tomorrow i.e. 09.07.2015. It is submitted that a question regarding equivalence of Adeeb and Adeeb-e-Mahir, has been referred to a Larger Bench and in spite of noticing pendency of the matter before a Larger Bench, the writ petitions were dismissed. It is submitted that a question regarding equivalence of Adeeb and Adeeb-e-Mahir, has been referred to a Larger Bench and in spite of noticing pendency of the matter before a Larger Bench, the writ petitions were dismissed. We are informed that a learned Single Judge of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur, has passed on interim order on 02.02.2015 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1232/2015, which has been placed before us for perusal, permitting the similarly situate persons, to appear in the Health Worker (Female), 1st Year Examination, 2015. The respondents are duly represented. They are allowed two weeks to file reply, both on the delay condonation application and the appeal. The rejoinder-reply will be filed within two weeks thereafter. List on 13.08.2015. In the meantime and until further orders, it is directed that the appellants will be permitted to appear in the Health Worker (Female), 1st Year Examination, 2015, to be held from tomorrow i.e. 09.07.2015, if they have been debarred on account of their having passed the examination from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh. Their results however shall not be declared. It is made clear that passing of this order will not create any right or equity in favour of the appellants. I.A. Nos. 28541/2015 and 28527/2015, are disposed of. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) will place the records for nominating a Larger Bench, reference in respect of which is pending at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. A copy of this order will be given today to the appellants and will be placed in the connected files." 5. At this juncture, it will be relevant to reproduce the Rule 59 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, which reads as under:- "59. Reference of a case to a larger Bench.-The Chief Justice may constitute a Bench of two or more Judges to decide a case or any question or questions of law formulated by a Bench hearing a case. In the latter event the decision of such Bench on the question or questions so formulated shall be returned to the Bench hearing the case and that Bench shall follow that decision on such question or questions and dispose of the case after deciding the remaining questions, if any arising therein." 6. In the latter event the decision of such Bench on the question or questions so formulated shall be returned to the Bench hearing the case and that Bench shall follow that decision on such question or questions and dispose of the case after deciding the remaining questions, if any arising therein." 6. In view of the afore stated Rule, it appears that the Chief Justice may constitute a Bench of two or more Judges to decide a case or any question or questions of law formulated by the Bench hearing the case. So far as CWP No. 3248/2013 is concerned, there is no question or questions of law formulated by the Division Bench for being decided by the Larger Bench. Under the circumstances, the office is directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for necessary consideration and orders.Direction given as Above. *******