ORDER : Rekha Borana, J. 1. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for the post of Junior Engineer in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Department dated 02.04.2013. A corrigendum to the advertisement was issued on 30.04.2013 and in Clause No. 9 of the said corrigendum, the revised process for selection was mentioned. Clause No. 9 of the corrigendum advertisement dated 30.04.2013 is reproduced herein, which reads as under: ^^¼9½ la'kksf/kr p;u izfØ;k %& jkT; ljdkj }kjk funsZf'kr la'kksf/kr izfØ;k ds vuqlkj dfu"B vfHk;Urk ¼flfoy@eSdsfudy@bysfDVªd½ ds in ij p;u iw.kZr% eSfjV ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tk;sxkA esfjV fyLV gsrq fuEu ekinaM fu/kkZjr fd;s x, gSaA & dqy 100 vad & 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk ¼3 o"khZ; fMIyksek ;k fMxzh ¼flfoy@eSdsfudy@bySfDVªdy bathfu;fjax½ esa dqy izkIrkad ds vk/kkj ij½ & 65 vad & jktLFkku dk ewy fuoklh & 5 vad & vuqHko ¼fdlh Hkh ljdkjh foHkkx@ljdkjh dEiuh esa dk;Z djus dk vuqHko] izR;sd o"kZ ds 10 vad½ & vf/kdre 30 vad** 2. A provisional list for selection was issued by the Department in which the name of the petitioner found place and the total marks obtained by him were mentioned to be 76.98. However, the petitioner was not finally selected, in which case, he preferred a writ petition before this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12737/2013. Vide order dated 03.04.2014, the writ petition of the petitioner was disposed of with the following directions: "In view of the fact that the appointments have already been granted to the candidates and if any candidate, having less percentage of marks than the petitioner, has been provided appointment, then the petitioner shall be at liberty to file fresh representation before the respondents within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the event of receiving such representation by the Local Self Body, the Govt. of Rajasthan, the said authority shall decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of one month thereafter, while taking into consideration the fact that if any candidate, having lesser percentage of marks than the petitioner, under the category of physically handicapped, has been provided appointment, then the claim of the petitioner for appointment shall be decided strictly in accordance with law. 3. 3. In pursuance to the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner moved representation dated 10.04.2014 before the concerned authority and when the same was not responded to, he served a legal notice dated 07.07.2014 to which a response dated 03.09.2014 was received and it was informed that the representation of the petitioner had been decided and the petitioner had already been informed of the same vide letter No. 1762 dated 11.06.2014. It was further stated in the communication that as the experience certificate obtained by the petitioner was prior to the date of obtaining technical degree, he was not entitled to the 30 marks qua his experience. So, after deduction of 30 marks from his total obtained marks of 76.98, he was left with 46.98 marks only and therefore, his name did not reflect in the final select list. 4. Aggrieved against this communication dated 03.09.2014, the present petition has been filed. 5. It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had the experience of working with the government departments as required under the advertisement and certificate qua the same had also been issued by the competent authorities. So far as his obtaining the experience certificate prior to a date of his obtaining technical degree is concerned, counsel has stated that in fact he had obtained two diploma certificates at two different points of time. He submitted that in the year 1997, he had obtained a two years diploma certificate after successful completion of the course from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India). On the basis of the said qualification, he was appointed as a Junior Technical Assistant in the MNEREGA scheme vide order dated 30.03.2010. A copy of the said appointment order has been placed on record as Annex. P/16. Counsel further stated that in the year 2011, an amendment was introduced in the Rules of the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 and the qualification for diploma was enhanced from a period of two years to a period of three years. Thereafter, the petitioner again acquired a diploma certificate after completing the three years diploma course in the year 2012. On the basis of the said diploma certificate, he had applied for the present post. Thereafter, the petitioner again acquired a diploma certificate after completing the three years diploma course in the year 2012. On the basis of the said diploma certificate, he had applied for the present post. It is the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the experience certificate as submitted by him was perfectly valid and on the basis of the same, the 30 marks ought to have been granted to him. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents stated that in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court on 03.04.2014, the Department has proceeded on to decide the representation of the petitioner and the same has not been challenged before this Court. The counsel argued that unless and until the order deciding the representation of the petitioner is put to challenge, the present writ petition cannot be held to be maintainable. 7. Except the above argument, counsel for the respondents has not made any other submission. 8. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. So far as the submission of the counsel for the respondents that the representation of the petitioner had been decided and the information of the same had been conveyed to the petitioner is concerned, no proof of the same has been placed on record which shows that the same had been served on the petitioner. Order dated 11.06.2014 (Annex. R/1) also does not reflect the fact of the same having been forwarded to any person. It seems that information of the same has been given to the petitioner only vide letter dated 03.09.2014 in response to the legal notice served by the petitioner. So far as the reasons stated in the order dated 11.06.2014 and the communication dated 03.09.2014 are concerned, the same are based on the same line and terms. The petitioner has put a challenge to the communication dated 03.09.2014 and has challenged the same finding which has been concluded in the order dated 11.06.2014, therefore, it can be fully concluded that a non challenge to the order dated 11.06.2014 would be of no consequence as contents of the same are under challenge before this Court. 10. The petitioner has put a challenge to the communication dated 03.09.2014 and has challenged the same finding which has been concluded in the order dated 11.06.2014, therefore, it can be fully concluded that a non challenge to the order dated 11.06.2014 would be of no consequence as contents of the same are under challenge before this Court. 10. Although no submissions on merits have been made by the counsel for the respondents, a perusal of the reply as filed by the respondents makes it clear that no dispute has been raised qua the validity or authenticity of the experience certificate as placed on record by the petitioner. The same has not been considered only on the ground that the same had been obtained prior to obtaining his technical degree. 11. On the face of the record, it is clear that the petitioner was possessing a valid technical qualification prior to the date of obtaining the experience certificate and therefore, the marks qua the same ought to have been granted and considered for the purpose of his appointment. So far as the technical qualification obtained by the petitioner in the year 1997 is concerned, no objection qua its validity or authenticity has also been raised by the respondents and therefore, it cannot be said that the experience certificate issued to the petitioner was in pursuance to any invalid qualification. 12. In view of the above observations, the present writ petition of the petitioner is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant 30 marks qua the experience certificate to the petitioner and thereafter calculate the total obtained marks of the petitioner. If after the said calculation, the petitioner stand in merit and if any candidate in the category of physically handicapped has been afforded appointment having lesser marks than him, the petitioner be also afforded appointment on the post of Junior Engineer within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner if appointed, would not be entitled to any actual benefits but would be entitled to all notional benefits from the date any person having lessor marks than him has been afforded appointment. 13. However, it is made clear that the appointment of respondent No. 3 shall not be disturbed because of the decision made in the present petition.