[2025:RJ-JP:24098-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 698/2025 Archana Kumari Daughter Of Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 39 Years, R/o C/o Mahendra Singh Yogi, Ward No. 01, Sainik Nagar, Shri Ram Dharam Kante Ke Paas, Churu Road, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To Secondary School Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (Raj.), Through Its Secretary. 3. Assistant Secretary (Examination), Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner, Jaipur Road, Ajmer (Raj.) 4. Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shyam Lal HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 01/07/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the terms and conditions of the advertisement requiring a candidate to clear the qualifying examination on or before the date prescribed for written examination is aribitrary and has resulted in disqualifying large number of candidates including the present appellant. He would submit that once a candidate who had not even cleared the qualifying examination, was allowed to fill up the form and participate in the process of selection, the respondents [2025:RJ-JP:24098-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-698/2025] should have fixed the date of examination in the recruitment process at least one year thereafter, so that every candidate who has submitted application form for appearance in the qualifying examination is able to qualify and appear in the examination. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived in law. The advertisement clearly postulated that a candidate, though is entitled to participate in the process of selection if he has already filled in the application form for qualifying course, he has to obtain necessary qualification before the date of written examination. This condition was not challenged. The petitioner participated in the process of selection but his result could not be declared as under the terms of advertisement, he was not eligible to appear and participate in the process of selection, nor entitled to be selected. 4. Even for the sake of argument, if we find that there is some substance in the submission that such kind of condition ought not to have been included in the process of recruitment, it is equally well settled that one who has participated in the process of selection, cannot be allowed to challenge the terms and conditions of the process of selection after he remains unsuccessful. On that count alone, more than anything else, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR-RAHUL/39