[2025:RJ-JP:11190] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4400/2013 Mohd. Ashfaq Khan S/o Shri Shafi Mohammad, aged about 46 years, R/o Kachhwaya Para, Hindaun City, District Karauli, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Director,elementary Education, Bikaner 2. The District Education Officer,elementary Education, Karauli,district Karauli ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saumil Sharma for Mr. G.K. Sharma, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 11/03/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an advertisement dated 31.05.2008 was issued inviting applications for the post of Prabodhak, wherein, petitioner being qualified and eligible applied for the said post. It is apprised to this Court that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Para Teacher on 07.02.2001. 2. It is further submitted that respondents rejected the candidature of the petitioner by declaring him overage. In this regard, it is submitted that the petitioner was aged approximately 33 years at the time of initial appointment and age limit in the advertisement is specified as 35 years, therefore, petitioner was will within the age limit as required for the said post. Qua the [2025:RJ-JP:11190] (2 of 4) [CW-4400/2013] same, the petitioner has filed representations before the competent authority, however, respondent/ competent authority has not considered the same. 3. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has completed more than 10 years of service, therefore, petitioner is entitled for minimum regular pay scale as granted to the similar situated teachers of the State Government. 4. Additionally, it is submitted that similarly situated persons are regularized by the respondents on the said post depriving petitioner for the reason that petitioner has not secured requisite marks. In this regard, it is submitted that for awarding marks in the interview, no requisite criteria was adopted by the respondents except awarding 25 marks qua experience (Para Teacher). 5. Subsequently, it is submitted that criteria qua overage is for the Para Teacher post and no such criteria is mentioned in the advertisement for the post in question. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1839/2009 titled as Smt. Shailesh Verma & anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 6. Lastly, it is fairly conceded that as on date, petitioner is aged approximately 58 Years. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has raised preliminary objections and submitted that for the post of Prabodhak, as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement the age limit for the aforesaid post was specified as minimum 23 Years and maximum 35 Years. [2025:RJ-JP:11190] (3 of 4) [CW-4400/2013] 8. It is further submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Para Teacher at approximately 34 years of age in the Year 2001, whereas, age limit for the said post was specified as 33 Years. 9. Further, it is submitted that as petitioner has not qualified the requisite age limit criteria for the post of Para Teacher, therefore, petitioner cannot be granted age relaxtion under the advertisement dated 01.01.2009 on the post of Prabodhak. 10. Additionally, it is submitted that cut-off for General category for the post of Prabhodhak was specified as 70 percent, whereas, petitioner has secured 54 percent only. 11. Heard and considered. 12. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, upon perusal of the records, this Court has made the following observation: - 12.1. That the petitioner has not qualified the basic eligibility criteria qua age limit and no relaxation qua age is granted to the petitioner. 12.2. That no interim relief/ interim order is operational qua the petitioner. 12.3. That the petitioner has secured less than cut off marks. 12.4. That judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application in the instant matter. 12.5 That it is apprised to this Court that, as on date, no seats are lying vacant qua the said post. 13. In pursuance of the contentions noted insofar, this Court deems it apposite to place reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in State of Orissa & Anr. v. Raj Kishore Nanda & Ors. reported in [2025:RJ-JP:11190] (4 of 4) [CW-4400/2013] (2010) 6 SCC 777, Girdhar Kumar Dadhich Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2009) 2 SCC 706, Union of India v. B. Valluvan reported in (2006) 8 SCC 686 and Raj Rishi Mehra & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 243. 14. Accordingly, the instant matter stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/50