[2025:RJ-JP:25209] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13679/2020 Mamta Poshwal W/o Lalit Parkash Yogi, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village - Budhwal, Tehsil - Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural And Panchayatiraj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar, Rajasthan 3. District Education Officer (Elementary), Alwar, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma AGC Mr. Aditya Sharma for Mr. KS Shekhawat, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 08/07/2025 1. Petitioner preferred instant writ petition, seeking direction against the respondents to grant appointment to her on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak in Budhwal. 2. It is the case of petitioner that against the two vacant posts, petitioner stood at merit position No.3 in the merit list dated 17.02.2017. On merit position No.1 Sarita Kumari and on merit position No.2, Ashish Kumar were selected. 3. However, on perusal of the merit list dated 17.02.2017 placed on record as Annx.4 it has transpired that merit position No.1 was assigned to Sarita Kumari and merit position No.2 was assigned to Ashish Kumar but no merit position has been assigned to petitioner- Mamta Poshwal. A glaring misleading fact is revealed to the Court that in the typed copy of the original merit list [2025:RJ-JP:25209] (2 of 2) [CW-13679/2020] Annx.4, produced before this Court, petitioner by her own has written her merit position at number third, whereas no such merit position of petitioner is indicated in the original merit list. Thus, typed copy of Annx.4 is clearly a misleading document. In the original merit list (Annx.4), the merit position of petitioner has nowhere been stated to be at serial No.3. 4. Taking into consideration the original merit list dated 17.02.2017, petitioner miserably failed to establish her case pleaded in the writ petition that she stood at merit position No.3. It appears that against the two posts, only two persons viz. Sarita Kumari and Ashish Kumar were selected. Petitioner was not selected on merit. No wait list was prepared. Hence even if one of the selected candidate did not join, petitioner cannot claim her appointment on the vacant post as of right, since she was never selected in the recruitment process on merit. 5. Counsel for petitioner, having faced with situation referred hereinabove, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 7. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/227