[2025:RJ-JP:34017] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10274/2025 Lalita Verma D/o Jawahar Lal Verma, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Dhani Tibawali, Gaonri, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Education, Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Rajeev Gandhi Vidhya Bhawan, Secondary Education Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 3. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination For Teacher (Reet)-2024, Board Of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Rajeev Gandhi Vidhya Bhawan, Secondary Education Board Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with Mr. Aamir Khan For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 27/08/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared in the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination Teacher (REET), 2024 which is eligibility examination for recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-II. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the scheme of examination each question carries one mark and there was no negative marking. Learned counsel further submits that model answer-key has been published by the respondents [2025:RJ-JP:34017] (2 of 2) [CW-10274/2025] and upon comparing the same with the copy of OMR sheet possessed by the petitioner, it reflected that the petitioner ought to have been granted 93 marks yet, on account of some bona fide error, instead of 93 marks, the petitioner has been awarded 80 marks, which is causing prejudice to the petitioner. 3. It is settled proposition that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot examine the answer-keys nor can compare OMR sheet with the model answer key. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved, then she should have approached the concerned authorities reflecting her grievances. 4. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has not disclosed that at any point of time, petitioner has approached the respondent-authorities, nor any notice for demand of this justice was issued prior to filing the instant writ petition. 5. In view of above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation before respondents No.2 & 3, reflecting her grievances and in case, such representation is filed, same may be considered by the respondents in accordance with law. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /36