JUDGMENT : CMCW No.431/2024 in SAW No.499/2024:- Matter comes up on the misc. application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 548 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed.Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are taken up on board for deciding these appeals finally. 2. The controversy involved in these appeals is identical and hence, are decided by a common order. For convenience, the facts are being taken from lead case bearing D.B. SAW No.152/2023. 3. Challenge in the appeal (D.B. SAW No.152/2023) is to the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has clearly proceeded to decide the writ petition in the light of judgment passed in the Ganesh Narayanmali & Ors. Vs. State (Education Department) & Ors. reported in MANU/RH/291/2016 , wherein, after considering the provisions of law, the Court found that the B.P.E Three Years course has been treated as equivalent professional qualification vide letter dated 15.07.2015. Although, the advertisement does not speak of equivalent qualification. It has further proceeded to support neither under the scheme of Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short ‘1971 Rules’) nor in the advertisement dated 18.09.2013, there is any provision prescribed for equivalent qualification. The holders of B.P.E. three year degree course are not holding the qualification of B.P.Ed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that so far as the appellant is concerned, she has been qualified Bachelor in Physical Education and in short, it is mentioned as B.P.E. Three year degree course. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) is not different from the Bachelor of Physical Education (BPE) three year degree course except that there are two different courses; one is of three years and the other is of one year and therefore, the appellant ought not to have been denied the consideration for appointment as Physical Training Instructor (PTI) Grade-III for which the advertisement was issued and their qualification ought to have been taken into consideration and appointment ought to have been given to them. However, taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment, learned Single Judge has deprived the appellant from consideration for appointment. 7. However, taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment, learned Single Judge has deprived the appellant from consideration for appointment. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the B.P.Ed. Course is different from B.P.E. Course and the advertisement only allows the B.P.Ed. Course, National Council for Teacher Education (‘NCTE’) allows only the B.P.Ed. Course, thus, the appellant ought not to have been given any indulgence. It is further submitted that learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the order passed in the case of Ganesh Narayanmali (supra). 8. We have carefully considered the submissions. 9. The appellant had challenged the non-consideration for appointment under the advertisement dated 04.05.2018 which required educational qualification of the B.P.Ed. Bachelor of Physical Education as recognized by the NCTE or CPED i.e. Diploma in Physical Education (D.P.Ed) or a Certificate in Physical Education (C.P.Ed). 10. The appellants in these cases had been awarded the three year Bachelor of Physical Education degree course from the respective University, are as follow:- 11. The NCTE was impleaded as a party to the proceedings and specific reply was filed on behalf of the NCTE, wherein, it has been stated in para-7 as under:- “That the content of Para No.7 of the writ petition are admitted being matter of record anything contrary to the records are denied. Further, it is necessary to submit that the NCTE granted recognition/permission to Physical Education Programme Bachelor of Physical Education (BPE) three years degree course and NCTE also clarified that it is also professional qualification and person who have opt this education is eligible to be appointed on the post of PTI Teacher and NCTE has also clarified that Bachelor of Physical Education (BPE) is equivalent to Bachelor of Physical Education (BPEd).” 12. From perusal of the above, it is apparent that a person who has qualification of Bachelor of Physical Education (BPE) Three Year Degree Course is eligible to be appointed on the post of P.T.I. Teacher. The NCTE has recognised the said qualification as same as to Bachelor of Physical Education (BPE) and Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed). The short form of B.P.E is not reflected in the degree awarded to the appellant and it appears that the word ‘B.P.E.’ is only to denote the course of three years and in no other way that it can be said to be different from BPEd which is only of one year. The short form of B.P.E is not reflected in the degree awarded to the appellant and it appears that the word ‘B.P.E.’ is only to denote the course of three years and in no other way that it can be said to be different from BPEd which is only of one year. In fact, a course which is of lesser duration cannot be said to be lesser qualification than that of a course of one year. 13. In the circumstances, we hold that a person who possesses the qualification of Bachelor of Physical Education on completing the three year degree course would be eligible to be appointed as PTI Grade-III and the non-consideration of such a candidate merely by using a short form of ‘BPE’ and distinguishing it from ‘BPEd’ is a misnomer and an attempt to deprive the more meritorious candidates from appointment. 14. We, therefore, direct that candidature of the appellant shall be considered on merits and if the appellant is found suitable as per the terms of the advertisement, she would be given benefit of consideration for appointment from the date persons lessor to her in the merit having been so appointed with all consequential benefits. However, the benefits will have to be treated as notional but her seniority and her pay fixation notionally shall be done from the date the other persons have been so granted. The actual benefits shall be granted to the appellants-petitioners from the date when the writ petitioners filed the writ petitions. 15. In view of the above, the special appeals are allowed. 16. It is made clear that implementation of this order be made within a period of two months from today. 17. A copy of this order be placed in each connected writ petition.