[2025:RJ-JP:33893] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11731/2024 Vijay Singh Son Of Shri Ramcharan, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Moonda Ki Dhani, Bajawa Rawat Ka, Gudharoji, Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Treasurer And Accounts, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. President, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Komal Kumari Giri on behalf of Mr. Bajrang Sepat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore, AAAG with Ms. Tanushka Saxena on behalf of Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG Mr. Kartikeya Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 26/08/2025 1. Feeling aggrieved on account of not considering the petitioner as eligible candidate for recruitment process initiated vide advertisement dated 20.06.2023, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents indicates that Clause 21 (4) of the advertisement dated 20.06.2023 makes it clear that the candidates participating in the [2025:RJ-JP:33893] (2 of 2) [CW-11731/2024] recruitment examination are required to secure minimum 35% marks in paper-I and paper-II each and 40% marks in aggregate. However, in the instant case, the petitioner has secured only 18% marks in the paper-II which is not fulfilling the conditions mentioned in the advertisement. Conditions have been mentioned in the advertisement on the basis of Scheme of examination prescribed under Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963, wherein Schedule-II provides for similar condition of acquiring minimum 35% in paper-I and paper-II each and 40% marks in aggregate. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that thus the condition in advertisement is strictly in consonance with the Rules. The petitioner has neither challenged the vires of the Rules nor the condition of the advertisement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no prohibition whatsoever in the advertisement or in the Rules for not granting relaxation to Ex-serviceman. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally inconceivable and misconceived in the light of explicit Rules and condition of the advertisement. 6. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit and substance, hence the petition is dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/53