ORDER : 1. The present petition has been filed with a prayer for consideration of the experience certificate dated 10.08.2019 for the purposes of appointment to the post of Headmaster, Secondary School in pursuance to the advertisement dated 28.03.2018. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press prayer No. A as made in the writ petition vide which it has been prayed that condition No. 3 of point No. 2 of the qualifications provided under the advertisement dated 28.03.2018 be quashed. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she joined as Teacher Grade-III with the respondent-Department on 10.09.2013 and is working as such since her date of joining. Vide the advertisement dated 28.03.2018, the applications for the appointment to the post of Headmaster, Secondary School were invited by the respondent-Department and she too applied in pursuance to the said advertisement. The essential qualification required for the post of Headmaster was minimum 5 years’ teaching experience in any school. It was further the condition of the advertisement that the teaching experience as required should have been obtained by the candidates before the last date of submission of the application form and then only the person would be eligible for the appointment. The other condition of the advertisement was that the experience certificate counter signed by the District Education Officer would only be acceptable for the purposes. 4. Admittedly, in petitioner’s application form, the experience period mentioned by her was for the period from 10.09.2013 to 21.05.2018 i.e. 56 months. However, the petitioner participated in the recruitment process and was even selected. During the document verification she submitted the experience certificate dated 10.08.2019 (for the period from 11.09.2012 to 30.05.2018) issued to her and counter signed by the authorized officer which was accepted and she found place even in the final select list dated 23.09.2019. After the final select list being issued, the candidates were called for counselling for posting purposes and even in that order dated 16.10.2019, petitioner’s name found place. After the final select list being issued, the candidates were called for counselling for posting purposes and even in that order dated 16.10.2019, petitioner’s name found place. However, before any appointment order could be issued in favour of the petitioner, communication dated 18.12.2019 was issued by the Joint Director addressed to the District Education Officer whereby it was directed that the actual experience gained by the petitioner would commence from her actual date of appointment i.e. 10.09.2013 and therefore, the experience certificate issued to her w.e.f. 11.09.2012 cannot be held to be correct and the same be modified. In pursuance to the communication dated 18.12.2019, a new experience certificate dated 10.01.2002 was issued pertaining to the period from 10.09.2013 to 30.05.2018 i.e. for a period of 4 years 8 months and 21 days. Because of the said experience certificate, the petitioner was not held to be entitled to be appointed as Headmaster as she had not completed the required five years of experience and consequently her candidature was cancelled. Aggrieved against the same the present petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the communication dated 18.12.2019 is totally bad in the eyes of law as earlier by virtue of judgment dated 15.02.2019 passed in a writ petition preferred by the petitioner (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1310/2019), it was specifically directed that the petitioner would be treated senior to the persons junior to her in merit list and in pursuance to the said judgment notional benefits were granted to her by the Department vide order dated 22.10.2019 w.e.f. 11.09.2012 i.e. the date the person junior to her was appointed. Learned counsel submitted that when once the notional benefits had been granted to her in pursuance to the specific directions of the Court, the said date would only be the effective date for all purposes including her seniority as well as the experience. Therefore, the experience certificate dated 10.08.2019 issued in her favour for the period commencing from 11.09.2012 was totally in consonance with law and was rightly considered at the first stage and the same could not have been directed to be modified/renewed in contravention to law. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order dated 18.12.2019 was passed at her back and no opportunity of hearing before passing the same was granted to her. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order dated 18.12.2019 was passed at her back and no opportunity of hearing before passing the same was granted to her. It was only vide the communication of the RPSC that she came to know that her appointment had been cancelled. Learned counsel submitted that had she been informed or called upon to show cause, she could have submitted the relevant facts before the authorities as only because the experience certificate dated 10.08.2019 was issued in her favour, she did not attempt to get an experience certificate being issued in her favour for the services she rendered with a private institute from the period of 02.07.2012 to 15.05.2013. Had the experience certificate dated 10.08.2019 been not issued in her favour, she could have obtained the experience certificate for the period she obtained experience with the private institute and the same could have been considered. Had she been given an opportunity of hearing, she would have had a chance to put up her case and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed only on the ground of principles of natural justice. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the appointment order dated 16.10.2019 issued in her favour was never withdrawn by the competent authorities and therefore, the impugned order dated 18.12.2019 and further communication dated 30.06.2020 of the RPSC would be of no consequence. Learned counsel also submitted that although a fresh experience certificate has been issued on 10.01.2020 but while issuing the same, the earlier experience certificate dated 10.08.2019 has not been withdrawn or cancelled and therefore, the same holds good till date and ought to have been considered. 7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. Smt. Sangeeta Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, S.B. Civil Writ No. 2998/2016 decided on 05.12.2016 2. Naveen Patidar vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10729/2018 decided on 03.01.2020 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as RPSC submitted that the experience certificate dated 10.08.2019 had wrongly been issued by the authority concerned and therefore, the direction to modify the same was rightly issued by the Competent Authority. Naveen Patidar vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10729/2018 decided on 03.01.2020 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as RPSC submitted that the experience certificate dated 10.08.2019 had wrongly been issued by the authority concerned and therefore, the direction to modify the same was rightly issued by the Competent Authority. Learned counsel submitted that firstly, the petitioner herself, in her application form, submitted her experience for the period from 11.09.2013 only and therefore, consideration of the experience certificate dated 10.08.2019 would amount to a correction in the application form submitted by the petitioner herself which is not permissible in terms of the settled proposition of law. Learned counsel further submitted that experience can only be gained for the work actually performed and admittedly the petitioner joined the services on 10.09.2013 and therefore, her actual work experience could commence only from 10.09.2013 and no date prior to that. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following judgments: 1. Santosh Kumar Meena and Others vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others, Civil Appeal No. 6116 of 2013 decided on 29.07.2013 2. Union of India and Another vs. M. Bhaskar and Others, Civil Appeal No. 5410 of 1991 decided on 06.05.1996 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. The first issue in the present petition is - What would be consequence of the earlier judgment dated 15.02.2019 passed in favour of the petitioner whereby she was directed to be treated senior to the persons lower in merit to her and whereby the notional benefits were directed to be granted to her w.e.f. the date the person junior to her had been granted appointment. 12. 12. In Sangeeta Choudhary’s case (supra), while relying upon the judgment passed in the case of Smt. Kamla Kanwar vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11774/2011 decided on 02.04.2013, the Court observed as under: “Had the petitioner been reinstated in service and allowed to resume the duties forthwith, after passing of the order dated 04.09.2002 or at least after judgment passed by the Division Bench dated 17.09.2002 affirming the order setting aside the cacellation of appointment and directing reinstatement of the petitioner in service with consequential benefits, the petitioner would have acquired the requisite experience, while actually discharging the duties of the said post and thus, would have been saved from entering into this protracted litigation.” 13. The Court further held as under: “So far as the judgment in the case of V.B. Prasad (supra) is concerned, the facts therein, were not such wherein the directions given by the Court were violated by the respondents and as already noticed hereinbefore, as the direction in the present case i.e. 10.02.2009 was to grant appointment to the petitioner from the date, the persons lower in merit, were granted appointment and the order of appointment dated 20.07.2011 only indicates passing the order in pursuance of order dated 10.02.2009, the necessary result would be that the petitioner was granted appointment w.e.f. the date the persons lower in merit, were accorded appointment and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to higher experience and consequential bonus marks for the said experience.” 14. In Naveen Patidar’s case (supra) wherein also a similar issue arose and the similar grounds were taken by the respondents therein, while considering the case of Sangeeta Choudhary (supra), the Court observed as under: “In similar nature circumstance when the appointment despite directions given by the Court was not accorded to the petitioner, in the case of Sangeeta Choudhary (supra), this Court ordered for counting the experience of the petitioner therein from the date directions were given by the Court to accord appointment, which was accorded after a passage of over 02 years 05 months. In the present case, the directions of the Division Bench are explicit and the case of the petitioner stands on a better footing. In the present case, the directions of the Division Bench are explicit and the case of the petitioner stands on a better footing. It is no doubt true that the petitioner had actually worked for a day only, which aspect is admitted by the petitioner, the fact that denial of appointment took place despite merit took place at the time of earlier recruitment for no fault of the petitioner and directions were given by the Division Bench for grant of notional benefits, the petitioner cannot be deprived of grant of certificate on the ground that after appointment the petitioner had worked for one day only with the respondents.” 15. A conclusion from the above judgments as can be reached to is that if there is a specific direction that the services of a candidate are to be considered to be continuous and the benefits are to be given to the person w.e.f. the date the person junior to him/her had been appointed, the same would conclude into the fact that all the benefits would relate back to the actual date from which the notional benefits have been directed to be granted. As per the ratio laid down in the above judgments, had the petitioner been granted appointment rightly, she could have obtained the experience as required and therefore, inaction of the respondents cannot be made a reason to punish the petitioner. 16. The present one is a case where at the first stage the experience certificate was issued to the petitioner and the same was even considered for all purposes and after consideration of the same, even the appointment order was issued in her favour. Only before posting order could be passed in her favour, her appointment has sought to be cancelled and that too without any notice to her which clearly is in contravention to the principles of natural justice. Only before posting order could be passed in her favour, her appointment has sought to be cancelled and that too without any notice to her which clearly is in contravention to the principles of natural justice. Although the experience certificate placed on record by the petitioner pertaining to her work experience with a private institute could not have been considered in general circumstances but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present matter, this Court deems it proper to consider the same because of the following reasons: (i) Had the experience certificate dated 10.08.2019 not been issued in favour of the petitioner by the Competent Authority, she would definitely have obtained the certificate pertaining to her work experience with a private institute and the same would have been considered for the present purposes. (ii) It is not the case of the respondents that the experience certificate dated 10.08.2019 was obtained by the petitioner in any fraudulent manner or had not been issued by a Competent Authority. There being no role of the petitioner in issuance of the experience certificate dated 10.08.2019, she could not have been penalized for the same even if it is assumed that it had been issued for a period pertaining to a period for which she was not entitled to. (iii) The experience certificate was considered by the respondent-Authorities and was never objected to at any stage till the issuance of appointment order in her favour. (iv) It is clear on record that the petitioner had five years of teaching experience which was the required qualification in terms of the advertisement. 17. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination it cannot be assumed that the petitioner did not possess the work experience as required for the purposes of appointment on the post of Headmaster. 18. So far as the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents in support of his submission that a correction in the application form is not permissible, the same has no application in the present matter. Firstly, because the said objection was never raised by the respondents during the complete process of recruitment and on the contrary experience certificate dated 10.08.2019 was considered and relied upon by the authorities for the purposes of selection. Firstly, because the said objection was never raised by the respondents during the complete process of recruitment and on the contrary experience certificate dated 10.08.2019 was considered and relied upon by the authorities for the purposes of selection. Secondly, it was nowhere a case of respondents at the time of rejection of the candidature or cancellation of the appointment that she had not filled up the correct period of her work experience and therefore, her candidature deserves to be rejected. So far as the judgment passed in M. Bhasker’s case is concerned there is no dispute on the fact that the person promoted to higher grade cannot claim experience from the date of notional promotion, it has to be from the date of actual promotion. The said ratio would also have no bearing in the present matter as firstly, the present one is not a case of promotion and secondly, as observed above, the actual work experience as required in terms of the advertisement had admittedly been gained by the petitioner. Therefore, it is not a case where the work experience as required was not gained by the petitioner and she was claiming appointment on the basis of some notional experience. 19. In view of the above observations, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 18.12.2019; the second experience certificate dated 10.01.2020 and communication dated 30.06.2020 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the experience certificate dated 10.08.2019 earlier issued to the petitioner and issue order of posting in her favour on the post of Headmaster with immediate effect. It is made clear that the petitioner would be entitled to all the notional benefits w.e.f. 16.10.2019, the date of appointment order. 20. At this stage learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the post of Headmaster qua which the present litigation has arisen has been abolished vide notification dated 28.04.2022 by the State Government and the said post has been merged in the post of Vice-Principal. 21. 20. At this stage learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the post of Headmaster qua which the present litigation has arisen has been abolished vide notification dated 28.04.2022 by the State Government and the said post has been merged in the post of Vice-Principal. 21. In the opinion of this Court, the said development could not have much relevance to the present matter as firstly, the notification dated 28.04.2022 would not have a retrospective effect and secondly, by virtue of interim order dated 21.08.2020 one post was directed to be kept vacant and therefore, as a consequence of allowing of the present petition, the petitioner would be appointed to the post of Headmaster w.e.f. 16.10.2019 and if the notification dated 28.04.2022 would be held applicable to her, the same would be merged in the post of Vice-Principal in accordance with law. 22. All the pending applications stand disposed of.