[2026:RJ-JP:737-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1333/2016 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The Director, Directorate Of College Education, Rajasthan, Siksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Appellants Versus Smt. Anita Kothari Wife Of Shri S.s. Kothari, 1/33, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chinmay Saxena, AGC Mr. Jitendra K. Takar Ms. Tanisha Parmar for Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Maloo, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mr. Harsh Pratap Singh Mr. Aditya Goyal Mr. Prahlad Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 09/01/2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 14.01.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. Mr. N.K. Maloo, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the appeal deserves to be dismissed, as the appellants have challenged the order passed by the learned Singe Judge, which was passed on the basis of consent given by the learned Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan. He [2026:RJ-JP:737-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1333/2016] further submits that a break in service is not countable for the purpose of grant of selection scale under Career Advancement Scheme. 3. It is submitted that on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, the learned Advocate General appeared before the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition and had given consent. The relevant part of the judgment, wherein the learned Advocate General agreed to the order, reads as under:- “In view of above, learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the period till 16.09.1984 cannot be counted for grant of selection scale due to break in service by 315 days and even for lesser period of totalling 432 days break. Subsequent to the aforesaid i.e. 17.09.1984, there is no break in service as the small break is due to absence etc. According to the non- petitioners, there is a break of 2 days in the year 1985, 10 days in the year 1986, 2 days in the year 1987 and lastly, 22 days in the year 1988. Further, for 14 days in the year 1988 (1.11.1988 to 14.11.1988) but extra ordinary leave was granted. It is agreed by the parties that so called break after 17.9.1984 cannot be termed as break as it was due to absence which period has been regularized for pensionary benefits. “ 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. [2026:RJ-JP:737-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1333/2016] 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and also considering the fact that the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order on the basis of consent given by the learned Advocate General, therefore, no case is made out for interference by this Court in the matter. 6. Hence, the present appeal stands dismissed. All the pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /68