ORDER : 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Goverdhan Singh has approached this Court craving for a direction to the respondents to offer him appointment as a Hostel Superintendent in a recruitment process initiated in the year 2007. 2. The petitioner claims to have been discharged from service in the year 2002 after serving the armed forces for fifteen years and earning pensionary status of an ex-serviceman. It has further been asserted in the writ petition that the petitioner was matriculate while being inducted in service. He holds a graduation certificate issued to him by the Commanding Officer of his regiment in the year 2002. Thus, relying on the office memorandum dated 12.02.1986 issued by the Government of India, a claim is made that the graduation certificate issued by the Army is to be treated valid and sufficient so as to entitle the petitioner to apply for Group-C posts in any Government Service. 3. The qualification required under the notification dated 15.12.2007 floated by the respondent RPSC for the questioned recruitment was Higher Secondary or equivalent. As per the petitioner, undeniably the qualification of graduation is higher as compared to Higher Secondary and as such, on the strength of the above office memorandum of the Central Government, the petitioner claims to be holding the requisite qualification so as to stake a claim against the seats reserved for ex-serviceman in the questioned recruitment process. 4. It is disheartening to note here that the matter pertains to a plea for reemployment made by an ex-serviceman who has given his blood and sweat for serving the country but the response of the respondents is absolutely pathetic and lackadaisical. Whilst respondent No.2, the Department of Social Welfare, has till date not filed any reply to the writ petition, the respondent No.1 RPSC filed its reply after almost six years. Be that as it may. 5. It is asserted in the reply filed on behalf of RPSC that as the petitioner was not holding the requisite certificate of Higher Secondary, he cannot be considered qualified for appointment in the questioned recruitment process. The applicability of the Central Government office memorandum is disputed and it is claimed that the said office memorandum would not have any application in a State Government sponsored recruitment. The applicability of the Central Government office memorandum is disputed and it is claimed that the said office memorandum would not have any application in a State Government sponsored recruitment. It is further stated that the recruitment process is over long back and thus, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed for. 6. Shri M.S. Godara, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the office memorandum dated 12.2.1986 issued by the Central Government and also, upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Soraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2537/2011) decided on 22.1.2015 and urged that the office memorandum issued by the Central Government has to be held applicable across the board for recruitment in any government service be it sponsored by the Central or the State government. He urged that the graduation certificate, which has been issued to the petitioner by the armed forces, for its applicability does not make any distinction between State or Central Government services. He further urged that a circular in the very same terms as the one issued by the Central Government has also been issued by the State Government in the year 2013 and the certificate of graduation issued by the Armed Forces has been held valid for recruitments in State services as well. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Purushottam v. Chairman, M.S.E.B. & Anr., reported in AIR 1999 SCW 4747 and contended that in a case involving wrongful rejection of claim for recruitment, a plea that the recruitment has been completed and panel has expired, cannot be considered justified for rejecting the claim for appointment of a successful candidate who has been wrongly deprived. He thus prayed that the writ petition should be accepted in the terms prayed for with consequential benefits and cost. 7. Per contra Sh. J.P. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sh. Khet Singh appearing for the RPSC vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. He thus prayed that the writ petition should be accepted in the terms prayed for with consequential benefits and cost. 7. Per contra Sh. J.P. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sh. Khet Singh appearing for the RPSC vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. It was contended that (a) the petitioner does not hold the qualification of Higher Secondary and thus he is not eligible for the questioned recruitment and (b) that the office memorandum of year 1986 on which, the petitioner has based his claim was issued by the Government of India and thus, the graduation certificate issued in terms of the said memorandum held by the petitioner can be considered valid for recruitment/re-employment in any Central Civil Services and not in State Government sponsored recruitments. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 9. The genuineness of the graduation certificate issued to the petitioner from the Armed Forces is not disputed. Thus, the only question, which falls for this Court’s consideration is, as to whether the said graduation certificate can be considered equivalent or higher to higher secondary school certificate and whether a person holding such certificate can be considered educationally qualified for recruitment in State Government Services where minimum prescribed qualification is higher secondary. The language of the Graduation Certificate issued to the petitioner is reproduced here in below for the sake of convenience. “1. As per Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel and Training) OM No. 15012/8/82/ESTT (D) dated 12 Feb 86, Ex-Servicemen who are matriculate (which term includes ex-servicemen who have obtained the Indian Army Special Certificate of Education or the corresponding certificate in the Navy or the Air Force), and have put in not less than 15 years of service in the Armed Forces of the Union may be considered eligible for appointment to any reserved vacancy in Group ‘C’ posts for which the essential qualification is graduation and where experience of technical or professional nature is not essential. 10. 10. It is therefore certified that Number 14497579W Rank (Ex) NK Name & Initials Gordhan Singh Trade GNR who had served in the Indian Army for 17 years from 18.08.84 to 31.07.02 is to be considered educationally qualified for reserved group ‘C’ posts where prescribed qualification is graduation.” 11. The State Govt. has itself issued a notification dated 26.08.2013, whereby certificate of graduation issued by the armed forces to a serviceman or an ex-serviceman, who retires after having put in fifteen years of service has been treated as valid and equivalent for recruitment to the post, where essential qualification is graduation .For this purpose, the State Government has introduced Rule 6A in the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-serviceman) Rules 1988, which read as under:- “6A. Special provision regarding educational qualification.-(1) For appointment to any vacancy reserved for ex-serviceman in Subordinate or Ministerial Service posts, a matriculate ex-serviceman (which term includes an ex-serviceman, who has obtained the Indian Army Special Certificate of Education or the corresponding certificate in the Navy or the Air Force), who has put in not less than 15 years of service in the Armed Forces of the Union may be considered eligible for appointment to the posts for which the essential educational qualification prescribed is graduation and where…” 12. The rationale behind this relaxation provided to ex-servicemen is apparent and has a salutary purpose behind it. Any person, who opts for the armed forces makes a great sacrifice for serving the nation. After being recruited, he readily gives up opportunity of leading a fulfilling family life and of gaining higher education as well. 13. This is more so in the cases of lower ranked armed forces personnel, who get recruited at young age and miss out on the opportunity to pursue higher education. The Central Government has offered solace for this loss of opportunity to the servicemen or ex-servicemen by empowering the Armed forces to confer upon them a graduation certificate subject to the condition that the concerned person has put in at least fifteen years of service and that such person has obtained the Indian Army Special Certificate of Education or the corresponding certificate in the Navy or the Air Force. Thus, the office memorandum issued by the Central Government in the year 1986 whereby such Graduation Certificates issued to soldiers of the country by the armed forces have been accepted as valid for recruitment/reemployment in Group-C Services is a measure of just redemption and appreciation of the sacrifice of noble soldiers, who have piously served the country at great personal cost. The fact that the State Government itself has introduced the above quoted amendment in the Rules of 1988, clearly indicates towards the intent of the Government to provide this relaxation to the ex-serviceman. It is also note worthy to mention here that the Graduation Certificate is not an automatic fall out of completing fifteen years service in the concerned Armed Force. Such serviceman is also required to obtain a special certificate of education from the force and then only the graduation degree is conferred to him. The plea taken by the learned counsel for RPSC that a person holding a graduation certificate issued by the armed forces can be considered educationally qualified only for appointment to a Central Service and not in a State Service, is absolutely illogical and untenable. This so called classification if allowed to stand would be totally unjust, arbitrary and violative of fundamental right of equality as enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. A controversy ad idem to the one at hand was examined by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and decided in favour of ex-serviceman. The matter was carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which after examining the controversy, in the case of Chief Executive Officer, NSSO & Ors. Vs. Biswa Bhusan Nandi, reported in 2008 AIR SCW 6472 held as under:- “…Therefore, the question remains as to how far the authority was justified in refusing to give appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the notification dated 12.2.1986 brought him at par with the people having qualification as graduate but in view of the specific qualification required for recruitment to the post of Data Entry Operator, the present petitioner could not have any claim. In the peculiar background of the present case, as indicated hereinbefore, we find it difficult to accept this contention. In the peculiar background of the present case, as indicated hereinbefore, we find it difficult to accept this contention. Here the petitioner not only passed both the written and the viva voce tests, being an Ex-Serviceman having putting (sic put in) more than 15 years of service in Indian Air Force, his matriculation qualification brought him at par with those having graduation. In absence of any clarifying clause in the notification dated 12.2.1986, it may be unjust in the background of the present case to deny the petitioner an appointment mainly on the ground that the essential qualification required for the post of Data Entry Operator, Gr. B, was graduation with Mathematics and Statistics. …” 14. Thus, clearly the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the ratio of the above judgment and he is entitled to be considered educationally qualified for the post advertised in the questioned recruitment process. 15. It is also elaborated in the writ petition that the petitioner was selected in the competitive examination conducted by the respondents. He appeared in the interview and was waiting for the issuance of the appointment order, which never came around, upon which, a legal notice was served upon the respondents but was not responded to whereupon the instant writ petition came to be filed. This fact is not controverted by the respondents 16. The argument advanced by Sh. Joshi that the recruitment process is over long back and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed for, does not convince the Court even for a moment so as to throw out the petitioner's genuine claim for employment. The reasons for reaching to this conclusion are evident. The unsavoury situation is purely a creation of the respondent RPSC. The petitioner filed the instant writ petition at the earliest point of time i.e. in the year 2009. Notice of final disposal was issued to the respondents way-back on 8.5.2009 and service was effected as long back as in August, 2009. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the State Government till date despite service. The Court gave last opportunity of filing reply to the respondents on 22.11.2011. The reply of the commission was ultimately filed in May, 2016. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the State Government till date despite service. The Court gave last opportunity of filing reply to the respondents on 22.11.2011. The reply of the commission was ultimately filed in May, 2016. Thus, the responsibility of the gross and undue delay in disposal of this writ petition is totally that of the respondents and the petitioner cannot be penalized for the situation created by such delay. 17. Otherwise also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Purushotam (supra) relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel, has clearly held that right of an aspirant to be appointed on the post, after being duly selected and otherwise entitled to be appointed, cannot be usurped owing to illegal decision of the Screening Committee, on the pretext that by way of subsequent developments, the panel has expired and the post has been filled up by somebody else. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as below:- “4. In view of the rival submission the question that arises for consideration is whether a duly-selected person for being appointed and illegally kept out of employment on account of untenable decision on the part of the employer, can be denied the said appointment on the ground that the panel has expired in the meantime. We find sufficient force in the contention of Mr. Deshpande appearing for the appellant inasmuch as there is no dispute that the appellant was duly selected and was entitled to be appointed to the post but for the illegal decision of the screening committee which decision in the meantime has been reversed by the High Court and that decision of the High Court has reached its finality. The right of the appellant to be appointed against the post to which he has been selected cannot be taken away on the pretext that the said panel has in the meantime expired and the post has already been filled up by somebody else. Usurpation of the post by somebody else is not on account of any defect on the part of the appellant, but on the erroneous decision of the employer himself. In that view of the matter, the appellant's right to be appointed to the post has been illegally taken away by the employer. Usurpation of the post by somebody else is not on account of any defect on the part of the appellant, but on the erroneous decision of the employer himself. In that view of the matter, the appellant's right to be appointed to the post has been illegally taken away by the employer. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and judgment of the High Court and direct the Maharashtra State Electricity Board to appoint the appellant to the post for which he was duly selected within two months from today. We make it clear that appointment would be prospective in nature.” 18. The respondent RPSC in its reply has not contested or disputed the petitioner’s pertinent assertion that he stood in merit in the competitive examination. 19. Consequently, this Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioner is required to be treated as qualified for selection as a Hostel Superintendent in the questioned recruitment process on strength of the graduation certificate issued to him by the Indian Army. The non consideration of petitioner’s candidature for selection as a Hostel Superintendent in the questioned recruitment despite standing in merit is declared to be illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional. 20. However, for the sake of removing anomaly if any and as the respondent RPSC has not given any proper response to the petitioner’s assertion that he cleared the written examination and also appeared in the interview it is hereby clarified that in case, the petitioner cleared the written examination and stood in merit but was not subjected to the process of the interview, then in such a situation the RPSC shall forthwith interview the petitioner and thereafter, forward his name to the state government for appointment in case his case he is found successful as per norms of the recruitment process. However, if interview has already been held then there shall be no requirement of conducting this exercise. In case, the petitioner is finally appointed, he shall be entitled to all notional benefits from the date, the last candidate was regularly appointed in the same selection process. 21. The writ petition is hereby allowed in the above terms. A cost of Rs.10000/- each is imposed on the respondent state government as well as the RPSC for being responsible for the undue delay in disposal of the instant writ petition. Cost upon being realized shall be paid to the petitioner.