[2025:RJ-JP:27038-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1566/2012 Ved Prakash S/o Shri Kailash Chand, Village Dwarapura, Post Delari, Via Bandikui, District Dausa ----Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner 3. District Education Officer Secondary, Sriganganagar 4. District Education Officer Secondary Dausa 5. Smt. Manju Bala W/o Vijay Sihag, Village Mammadkheda, Post Morgand Khari Via Lalgarh Jatan, District Srigangangar ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahendra Shah, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Kamlesh Sharma & Mr. Shreyansh Dhariwal. For Respondent(s) : None present. HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Order 21/07/2025 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.10.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12832/2012, whereby his writ petition was dismissed. 2. The question raised in the instant appeal pertains to selection process for the post PTI Grade-III against the vacancies of the year 2003-04. The issue raised by the appellant-writ [2025:RJ-JP:27038-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1566/2012] petitioner was that since he secured more marks than the last selected candidate, he should also be given appointment. 3. Mr. Mahendra Shah, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kamlesh Sharma & Mr. Shreyansh Dhariwal, appearing on behalf of appellant-writ petitioner submits that the right of appointment accrued on the appellant-writ petitioner as per his own merit, and thus, the protection ought to have been granted and the learned Single Judge has erred in arriving at a finding that even if, a person has not come to the Court in the intervening stage of select list, then also he/she is entitled for the relief. 3.1 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in district Sri Ganganagar, total 18 posts were advertised for male schools and 02 posts were advertised for female schools and the respondents appointed 02 female candidates for female school and against 18 vacancies for male, while separate reservation was provided. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that such bifurcation could not have been in accordance with law. 4. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 5. This Court, on a consideration of the submissions advanced by learned Senior Counsel, is of the firm opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity because it was a conclusion so arrived at by the learned Single Judge on the basis that nothing on record could establish that any person lesser in merit than the appellant was accorded appointment and thus, the merit position of the appellant-writ petitioner does not entitle him for such appointment. Moreover, it was also observed by the learned Single [2025:RJ-JP:27038-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1566/2012] Judge that there are more meritorious candidates between the appellant and the last selected candidate, as per the admitted factual position. The recruitment process in question pertains to the vacancies for the year 2003-04, which is about 21 years earlier. 6. In view of the above, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the appellant (writ petitioner) in the instant appeal. 7. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI), J. (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J. 157-Skant/Zeeshan