ORDER : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. The present writ petition has been filed by the employer-State challenging the order dated 20th May, 1996, passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by the said order has allowed appeal of the respondent giving direction of regularizing her services of Class-IV Post. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 (Smt. Chhoti Devi) was appointed on daily wages basis in January, 1988 as Peon/Sweeper in Mahila Chikitsalya, Sanganeri Gate, Jaipur. The respondent after putting more than 10 years of service, filed appeal No. 209/1997 before the Rajasthan Services Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 20th May, 1999 after hearing both the parties, allowed the appeal of the respondent, on the basis of the judgment passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1469/1996 (Smt. Naurati Devi and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan) dated 26th September, 1996. The operative portion of the order of the Tribunal is reproduced as hereunder:- ^^vf/kdj.k }kjk ekeys dh leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj fd;k x;kA bl ekeys ds izR;FkhZ i{k dh vkSj ls nyhy nh xbZ gS fd pwafd vihykFkhZ U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ugha j[krh Fkh blfy, vihykFkhZ dks fu;fer dj Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;kA nksuksa i{kksa dks lqus tkus ds i'pkr vc ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; M+h0ch0 flfoy fjV fifV'ku ua0 1469@1996 Jherh ukSjrh nsoh cuke jktLFkku jkT; o vU; ds fu.kZ; fnuakd 26-09-1996 dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, vf/kdj.k d er esa vihykFkhZ tks fd yEcs le; ls prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in ij dk;Z dj jgh gS] mlds lEcU/k esa bl ckr ij tksj ugha fn;k tkuk pkfg, fd og U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ugha j[krh gSA izR;FkhZ dks funsZ'k fn;s tkrs gS fd vihykFkhZ dh U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk dks /;ku esa ugha j[krs gq, vihykFkhZ dk fu;ferhdj.k dj ikyuk rhu ekg esa dh tkosA vihy mijksDr izdkj ls r; dh xbZA** 3. The Tribunal while passing the order had also considered objection raised by the petitioner-State/Employer that since respondent did not have the minimum educational qualification of 5th pass as such she was not entitled to be regularized in service. 4. The Tribunal after considering the judgment passed in SBCWP No. 1469/1996 (Smt. Naurati Devi and Ors. The Tribunal while passing the order had also considered objection raised by the petitioner-State/Employer that since respondent did not have the minimum educational qualification of 5th pass as such she was not entitled to be regularized in service. 4. The Tribunal after considering the judgment passed in SBCWP No. 1469/1996 (Smt. Naurati Devi and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), allowed the appeal and found that since respondent was working for a considerable long time of about 10 years, as such it should not be insisted by the State-Employer that she should possess the minimum educational qualification. The Tribunal directed that State should not consider the possession of minimum educational qualification, while considering the case of the respondent for regularization. 5. Learned counsel for the State-employer Mr. Khushal Singh, Adv., submits that the impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from legal infirmity and no direction could have been given to regularize services of the respondent No. 1 even by excluding the requirement of possessing minimum educational qualification i.e. 5th Pass. 6. Mr. Khushal Singh Advocate has further submits that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with the issue of regularization of a daily wage employee and as such the order is without jurisdiction. Counsel further submits that Section 9 of the Rajasthan (Regulation of appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff) Act, 1999 prohibits regularization of the employees. 7. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent submits that the issue of regularization of services of respondent is no more res-integra and he relied up on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1469/1996 (Smt. Naurati Devi and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) dated 26th September, 1996, reference of which has already been made by the Tribunal while passing the order impugned. 8. Mr. R.D. Meena Advocate counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 243/1997 (State of Raj. v. Smt. Naurati and Ors.), decided on 21st March, 2003, wherein the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Special Appeal of the State. 8. Mr. R.D. Meena Advocate counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 243/1997 (State of Raj. v. Smt. Naurati and Ors.), decided on 21st March, 2003, wherein the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Special Appeal of the State. Counsel submits that the Division Bench has specifically held that if the person was working continuously for more than one decade his/her services are required to be regularized and the qualification should not come in the way for discharge of their duties. The order of the Division Bench is reproduced as hereunder:- "The respondents were appointed on daily wage basis in the year 1987/1988. Since the respondents had been working in the Department for long number of years, they filed writ petition seeking regularization of their services. In the writ petition the appellants did not file any return. At the time of arguments, however, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondents did not possess the requisite qualification for regularization of their services. The learned single judge found that the respondent had been working for eight to nine years. This was the position in the year 1996, when the writ petition was disposed of. We are told by the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondents are still working in the Department. This means that the respondents have been continuously working with the appellants for more than one-and-a-half decades. In case the respondents were not discharging their duties efficiently, their services would have been terminated long back. It seems to us that their qualifications have not come in the way of discharge of their duties. The learned single judge, in the circumstances of the case, was entirely right in directing the appellants to regularise the services of the respondents. We do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed." 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court while deciding the similar issue in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5550/2000 (State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Barji Devi & Ors.), decided on 23rd February, 2011, has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench and dismissed the writ petition filed by the State. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court while deciding the similar issue in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5550/2000 (State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Barji Devi & Ors.), decided on 23rd February, 2011, has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench and dismissed the writ petition filed by the State. 10. This Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Barji Devi & Ors., has observed that non possession of educational qualification for holding post in the cadre of class -IV, will not come in the way of seeking regularization of the services. The Court found that no error has been committed by the Tribunal which may call for interference by this Court. The relevant para of the order is reproduced as hereunder:- "It is relevant to observe that the learned Tribunal has not independently examined the merits but has passed the judgment on the basis of decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Norati Devi v. State (CWP-1469/1999) decided on 26/09/1996); that apart, Counsel for respondent has further brought to the notice that the controversy raised herein has further been examined by Division Bench in Special Appeal (Writ) No. 675/2002 vide judgment dated 13/07/2004 and observed ad infra: "The respondent No. 1 indisputably was working on the post of Class IV since 1987. She was not regularized in the service, though her juniors were regularized. Ground was given for this that she does not possess the qualification of passing Class V examination. She approached to the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and the learned Tribunal took a very pragmatic and justice oriented approach in the matter. It is not in dispute that power vests in the State of Government to relax the education qualification prescribed for appointment on the post of Class-IV." In the light of the judgment (Supra), merely because incumbent does not possess qualification for holding post in the cadre of Class-IV, it will not come in the way for seeking regularization of the Services. In view of what has been observed by Division Bench (supra), this Court does not find manifest error being committed by learned Tribunal which may call for interference in the judgment impugned herein. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 18/12/2000 confirmed vide order dated 12/07/2001 stands vacated. No costs." 11. In view of what has been observed by Division Bench (supra), this Court does not find manifest error being committed by learned Tribunal which may call for interference in the judgment impugned herein. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 18/12/2000 confirmed vide order dated 12/07/2001 stands vacated. No costs." 11. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 12. In the opinion of the Court the Tribunal while passing the order dated 20th May, 1999 has not committed any illegality or any error in relying upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Smt. Naurati Devi and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. The said authoritative pronouncement of this court was binding on the Tribunal and as such on the same terms, the appeal of the respondent was allowed. 13. It is also important to note that during pendency of the writ petition, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Special Appeal filed by the State and further observed that if an employee is continuously working and his services are not terminated due to their inefficiency, non regularization of services of such employee for want of educational qualification, cannot be approved and as such, such employees are required to be regularized. 14. In the opinion of this Court, the decision given by the Division Bench upholds the right of the respondent to get her services regularized. 15. This Court while passing order in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Barji Devi and Ors., also granted similar relief and has directed that such services of employees be regularized in their favour. 16. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. The order of Tribunal dated 20th May, 1996 is upheld. The order of Tribunal may be implemented by petitioner-State within two months.