[2025:RJ-JP:10874] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15345/2012 Seemi Nasir S/o Shri Nasir Abrar, aged about 34 years, R/o C/o Majid Choudhary, H.No. 120, Ward No.12, Behind Tehsil Mohalla Zamindaran, District Sikar (Raj.) (Teacher Grade-III Examination-Subject Urdu (Level-II). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Add. Controller of Examination cum Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sikar. 3. Shahida Khatri through Add. Controller of Examination cum Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sikar. 4. Sajida through Add. Controller of Examination cum Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sikar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahmed For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanmay Dhand Ms. Sara Parveen for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 10/03/2025 Various Zila Parishads/respondents have issued advertisement for the recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade- III (Level I & II). At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petition is filed assailing the answer key issued by the examining authority RTET, 2011 (Level-II) for series-D. It is further submitted that the petitioner had secured [2025:RJ-JP:10874] (2 of 2) [CW-15345/2012] 127.75 marks for the said post under the respective category. However, due to wrongly checked/issued answer key candidates with less merit were appointed. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner had applied for the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) for Urdu subject. However, she was not having Urdu as one of the subjects in RTET Examination thence not qualifying the same. Therefore, as per condition laid down in point No.1.3 of the online application form, the candidature of the petitioner is rightly rejected. Upon a perusal of the records and considering the arguments made by the respective sides, this Court is satisfied with the contentions leveled by the counsel representing the respondents and is of the view to dismiss the present petition for want of eligibility. Nevertheless, it is also noted that the matter pertains to the year 2011 and after that much water has flown. Accordingly, the present petition being bereft of any merit stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/96