Himanshi D/O Ghanshyam Das Gupta vs State Of Rajasthan Through Principal … on 21 April, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur

Himanshi D/O Ghanshyam Das Gupta vs State Of Rajasthan Through Principal … on 21 April, 2025

Author: Anand Sharma

Bench: Anand Sharma

[2025:RJ-JP:16655]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14143/2018

Himanshi D/o Ghanshyam Das Gupta, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Ward No. 15, Jasoriya Colony, Khairthal, Alwar, Rajasthan
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Education Secretary,
         Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2.       The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner
3.       Rajasthan     Public      Service        Commission        Through     Its
         Secretary, Ajmer
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Amir Khan for
                                 Mr. Ram Pratap Saini
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Vaibhav Pareek for
                                 Mr. Nitin Jain
                                 Mr. Anjum Parveen for
                                 Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy.G.C



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

                                      Order

21/04/2025

1. In the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction

against the respondents for calling the petitioner in the counseling

process for the post of Teacher Grade-II (Sanskrit). It has been

stated that in the memo of writ petition that as many as 2295

vacancies of Sanskrit subject on the post of Teacher Grade-II were

advertised and applications were invited for eligible persons

against the advertisement dated 13.07.2016. It was mentioned in

the advertisement that so far as eligibility with regard to education

qualification is concerned, the candidate is required to possess

qualification of graduate or equivalent examination with concerned

(Downloaded on 24/04/2025 at 10:28:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16655] (2 of 3) [CW-14143/2018]

optional subject and degree or diploma in education recognized by

National Counsel for Teacher Education NCTE). It was also

mentioned in the advertisement that a candidate was required to

submit his/her education qualification before the examination to

be conducted in the aforesaid examination. The petitioner states

that although on the date of examination, she was not possessing

degree of B.A. however, after sometime, she has acquired the

required degree of B.Ed., therefore, she ought to have been

considered and appointed by the respondents on the post of

Teacher Grade-II (Sanskrit).

2. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition opposing

the prayer made by the petitioner and it has been stated that the

conditions of the advertisement were quite clear that the

education qualification required for holding the post of Teacher

Grade-II were to be placed before the respondents prior to the

date of examination and in the instant case, the petitioner has

failed to do so therefore, he is not entitled for consideration and

the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the

judgment in the case of Monika Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

and other connected matters in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.

747/2023 decided on 05.10.2023, in Para 13 of the aforesaid

judgments states as under:

“Therefore, considering the fact that the
advertisement dated 28.04.2022 was issued in
conformity with Rule 17 of the Rules of 2021;
that it is an admitted position that the appellant
did not possess the requisite educational
qualification on or before the cut-off date, as
prescribed in consonance with Rule 17 of the
Ruels of 2021; that this Court while exercising

(Downloaded on 24/04/2025 at 10:28:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16655] (3 of 3) [CW-14143/2018]

writ jurisdiction, cannot issue any directions
which are dehors the statutory rules, which
provide for possession/submission of proof
having acquired the requisite educational
qualification on the cut-off date i.e. date of
written examination and relying upon the
dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated
in Vijay Kumar Mishra (supra), this Court is
inclined to dismiss the present appeal.”

5. In the light of above, this Court has no hesitation in holding

that the respondents have rightly rejected the candidature of the

petitioner.

6. In view of the above, the present writ petition is hereby

dismissed.

7. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also

stand disposed of.

(ANAND SHARMA),J

NEERU/223

(Downloaded on 24/04/2025 at 10:28:09 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)