ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the counselling and he may be promoted on the post of Senior Teacher/Teacher Gr.II as per his seniority and that the list (Annex.5), qua the petitioner, may be quashed. 2. It is inter alia indicated that the petitioner has to his credit Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak (‘MDU, Rohtak’), wherein the petitioner has inter alia studied the subject English. 3. The petitioner was accorded appointment as Teacher Gr.III (Level-I) by order dated 8.2.1996 (Annex.1). By order dated 6.6.2016 (Annex.3), the petitioner was adjusted/posted as Teacher (Level-II) subject English. 4. Whereafter, a list for DPC year 2016-17 for Senior Teacher/Teacher Gr.II subject English (Annex.4) was published by the respondents, wherein, the name of the petitioner was reflected at Sr. No.57. It is claimed that though the petitioner was called for counseling, he was not allowed to fill up option form as his name appeared in the list (Annex.5), wherein, names of purported ineligible teachers have been reflected. 5. Submissions have been made that the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to participate in the counseling and denying promotion as Senior Teacher/Teacher Gr. II is not justified, inasmuch as, the petitioner is eligible. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the requirement under the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (‘the Rules of 1971’), for promotion to the post of Senior Teacher/Teacher Gr.II is graduation or equivalent examination with concerned subject as optional subject and degree or diploma in Education recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education. 7. Submissions have been made that the petitioner does possess the requisite qualification, however, the action of the respondents indicating that as the subject English was studied by the petitioner as a compulsory subject and not optional subject, the petitioner was ineligible, is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Deepak Bariya & Ors.: D.B.S.A.W. No.598/2018, decided on 4.4.2018, which has been followed in Komal Purohit v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13707/2018 & other connected matters, decided on 12.10.2018 and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. v. Deepak Bariya & Ors.: D.B.S.A.W. No.598/2018, decided on 4.4.2018, which has been followed in Komal Purohit v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13707/2018 & other connected matters, decided on 12.10.2018 and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents inter alia indicating that the promotions of Senior Teacher/Teacher Gr.II is granted to the incumbents, who have the requisite qualification. The petitioner has qualification of B.A., in which, English was the ‘Compulsory Subject’, however, as per the provisions of Rules of 1971, the eligibility requires concerned subject as ‘Optional Subject’ and that the said aspect has been clarified by the MDU, Rohtak by its letter dated 20.2.2018 (Annex.R/1), from where the petitioner has done his graduation. 9. Further submissions have been made that at the time of convening the DPC for regular promotion on the post in question, the eligibility of the petitioner was examined and it was found that the petitioner doesn’t have qualification prescribed for the post of Senior Teacher/Teacher Gr.II (English) and, therefore, his candidature was not considered by the DPC. Based on the said submissions, it has been prayed that the petition be dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for the State with reference to communication (Annex.R/1), filed along with the reply, made submissions that from the said communication it is apparent that the subject English is being taught by MDU, Rohtak as a compulsory subject only and that only from the session 2011-12, it has been indicated that English compulsory is equivalent to English elective and as the petitioner has obtained his degree prior to 2011-12, he cannot claim that subject English studied by him as compulsory be treated as optional subject, which is the required eligibility and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. The eligibility under the Rules of 1971 for the post of Senior Teacher/Teacher Gr.II inter alia reads as under :- “Graduation or equivalent examination with concerned subject as optional subject and Degree or Diploma in Education recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education.” 13. 12. The eligibility under the Rules of 1971 for the post of Senior Teacher/Teacher Gr.II inter alia reads as under :- “Graduation or equivalent examination with concerned subject as optional subject and Degree or Diploma in Education recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education.” 13. Though in the mark-sheets of the petitioner produced as Annex.2 while for subject Hindi (compulsory) has been indicated, for subject English nothing has been indicated, however, from the endorsement of the University produced as Annex.R/1, it is apparent that the petitioner had studied English also as compulsory subject. 14. The University in its communication Annex.R/1, relied on by the respondents, addressed to the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner Division, Bikaner, has indicated as under:- “In this connection, I am directed to inform you that as per Scheme of Examination of BA-I, II and III, English is being taught as Compulsory subject only. The Academic Council vide Vide Reso. Nos. 8 of its meeting held on 11.07.2011 (copy enclosed) concerned the recommendations of the Faculty of Humanities and resolved as under:- i) That a note be given in the Detailed Marks Card in respect of the students of BA Part-I, II and III stating therein that English (Compulsory) is equivalent to English (Elective) for all purposes w.e.f. the session 2011-12. ii) That similar certificates for Students who have passed B.A. I, II and III prior to 2011-12 be issued by the Academic Branch. (copy enclosed). The letter is already available on the University website. This is for your kind information and taking further necessary action in the matter.” 15. The certificate enclosed with the letter inter alia reads as Under :- “TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN In terms of decision taken by the Academic Council vide Reso. No.8 of its meeting held on 11.07.2011, it is certified that English (Compulsory) is equivalent to English (Elective) for all purposes for those students who have passed Bachelor of Arts Part-I, II & III from M.D. University, Rohtak prior to 201112 session. Further on the basis of the comments of Head, Department of English and Foreign Languages, M.D. University, Rohtak, both Literature and Language are taught in the subject of English (Compulsory) in B.A. with emphasis on English Literature. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Academic) Maharshi Dayanand University ROHTAK” (emphasis supplied) 16. Further on the basis of the comments of Head, Department of English and Foreign Languages, M.D. University, Rohtak, both Literature and Language are taught in the subject of English (Compulsory) in B.A. with emphasis on English Literature. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Academic) Maharshi Dayanand University ROHTAK” (emphasis supplied) 16. From a perusal of the above communication dated 20.2.2018 and the enclosed certificate, it is apparent that the University has clearly indicated that English (Compulsory) is equivalent to English (Elective) for all purposes for those students, who have passed Bachelor of Arts Part-I, II & III from M.D. University, Rohtak prior to 2011-12 session. In view of the indications made, the fact that the petitioner was taught English as compulsory subject by the University during his graduation, looses its significance, rather the same has to be treated as optional. 17. Besides the above, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak Bariya (supra), in a case which pertained to same post i.e. Senior Teacher/Teacher Gr.II (English), inter alia laid down as under:- “1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Issue which arises for consideration is whether a candidate who opts for a subject as a compulsory subject in graduation Course would be ineligible in terms of the qualification prescribed by the appellant which states that the candidate should have cleared a Graduation Degree in the concerned subject with English as an optional Subject. 3. The respondents have a graduation degree which shows that he had chosen English as a compulsory paper in the First, Second and Third Year of the three years Graduation Course. 4. It is trite that a rule has to be applied meaningfully and practically. The reason behind a rule needs to be ascertained to give meaning to a Rule. 5. As is known to one and all a person who clears Bachelor of Arts, Graduation Examination can opt for various disciplines such as History, Geography, Political Science, Social Science, English, Hindi, Psychology etc. 6. The University has given option to the candidates to opt for compulsory and optional Subject. The reason is a person desirous of acquiring better knowledge, to say History and Political Science, opts for the two as compulsory Subject and for others as optional subject. 7. 6. The University has given option to the candidates to opt for compulsory and optional Subject. The reason is a person desirous of acquiring better knowledge, to say History and Political Science, opts for the two as compulsory Subject and for others as optional subject. 7. The idea behind the rule in question framed by the appellant is to ensure that the candidate concerned has adequate knowledge in the Subject for which the candidate offers candidature to be appointed as a Teacher. 8. Since the respondent have opted for English as a compulsory subject in the graduation Course, the object of the rules is satisfied. Thus, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The impugned order dated 26.05.2017 is upheld. 9. The writ appeal is dismissed in limine.” (emphasis supplied) 18. Following the said judgment in the case of Deepak Bariya (supra), this Court in Komal Purohit (supra), which pertained to the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-II) English, requiring similar qualification, came to the following conclusion:- “A perusal of the above Division Bench judgment would reveal that the Court noticed the issue about ineligibility of the candidates, who opt for a subject as a compulsory subject in graduation course and the requirement is of the subject as an optional subject, came to a categorical conclusion that the candidate having opted for English as a compulsory subject in the graduation course, the object of the Rules is satisfied. Once the Division Bench based on its interpretation of the identical Rule/requirement, came to the conclusion that a candidate having opted for English as a compulsory subject in the graduation course satisfied the object of the Rules, the determination made by the respondents holding the petitioners as ineligible cannot be sustained.” 19. In view of the indications made by the University in Annex.R/1, the judgment in the case of Deepak Bariya (supra) and Komal Purohit (supra), the action of the respondents in holding that the petitioner as ineligible for counseling/promotion on the post of Senior Teacher/Teacher Gr.II, cannot be sustained. 20. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The list (Annex.5) indicating the name of petitioner as ineligible candidates, qua the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. 21. 20. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The list (Annex.5) indicating the name of petitioner as ineligible candidates, qua the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. 21. The respondents are directed to hold counseling/convene Review DPC for promotion on the post of Senior Teacher/Teacher Gr.II for the DPC year 2016-17 and, in case, the petitioner is otherwise eligible and is in seniority, accord benefit/promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. the date person juniors to the petitioner, in terms of list (Annex.4) have been accorded benefit/promotion with all consequential benefits, however, the petitioner would be entitled to monetary benefits, if any, from the date the order is passed. 22. Needful be done within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.