training programme-census, and could not appear in the test conducted in 2011, as there was some defect in his application form. He further submitted that in the test conducted in the year 2012, the petitioner could not appear as his grandmother had expired and the fourth time, when the test was conducted, the respondents had amended the relevant rule by incorporating computer type test instead of simple type test, and the petitioner being not well conversant with the computer, he could not qualify the same. Relying upon the decision of this Court in case of Mool Ch an d Ver su s Th e St at e of Raj ast h an , 2 0 0 5 ( 5 ) W LC ( Raj .) 4 5 0, he has submitted that the case of the petitioner be sympathetically considered and one last chance be given to the petitioner to appear in the typing test that may be held in future by the concerned department of the respondents. However, the learned counsel Mr. Dharmendra Pareek for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner having been given sufficient chances to clear the typing test, he had failed to do so and even otherwise his services were terminated on 31.12.2013, which order was already executed, however by virtue of the exparte interim order passed by the Court, the petitioner was again taken back with a view to comply the said order. According to him, the petitioner otherwise did not have any right to continue in the service.
