[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 [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 [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