CHANCHAL SHARMA DAUGHTER OF RADHEYSHYAM SHARMA v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CW/20444/2023 · 2025-07-12
Sudesh Bansal
Transfer Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 34521 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 34521 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:25903] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20444/2023 Chanchal Sharma Daughter Of Radheyshyam Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, Present Address- Village- Chaintoli, Tehsil- Bhusawar, District- Bharatpur (Rajasthan) - 321407. ----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To Government, School Education Department And Panchayati Raj (Elementary Education) Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302005.
2. Director, Elementary Education Department, And Panchayati Raj (Elementary Education) Department, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Rajasthan) - 334001.
3. Coordinator, Rajasthan Eligibility Examination For Teachers (Reet) - 2022, (Board Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer), Rajeev Gandhi Vidhya Bhawan, Board Of Secondary Education Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer (Rajasthan) - 305001.
4. Chairman, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302018.
5. Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302018. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tribhuvan Narayan Singh Mr. Jitendra Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishna, AGC Mr. Aditya Sharma for Mr. Satish Khandal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order 12/07/2025
1. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the material placed on record.
2. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to consider her candidature for the post of Teacher Level-I pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.12.2022, under the
[2025:RJ-JP:25903] (2 of 3) [CW-20444/2023] category of General (EWS) and if she is found in merit, appointment be accorded to her under such category.
3. It has transpired that initially in the online application form, petitioner indicated her category as General but later on, she was allowed to convert her category to General EWS by the Board. In the written examination, petitioner scored 188.3504 marks, and as per final result dated 31.08.2023, the last cut off marks in the category of General (EWS) is 181.2479, hence, petitioner is higher meritorious than the last selected candidate by the Board.
4. It appears that vide order dated 01.09.2023 (Ann-9), respondent-Board pointed out one shortfall in the application form of petitioner i.e. “required affidavit of EWS”. In the list enclosed with the order dated 01.09.2023, the name of petitioner finds place at Serial No. 183.
5. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has completed such shortfall and has submitted her certificate of EWS as well as affidavit required. As such, her candidature is required to be considered for appointment on merits.
6.
Learned counsel for Selection Board, does not dispute that the candidature of petitioner may be considered under the category of General (EWS).
7. In the above referred facts and taking into consideration the fact that petitioner has scored higher marks than the last cut off for the category of General EWS, this Court finds that her candidature is required to be considered by the Board for appointment. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with direction that the petitioner shall submit a detailed representation before the Respondent within a period of four weeks.
[2025:RJ-JP:25903] (3 of 3) [CW-20444/2023]
8. In case, such representation is filed, respondent-Board shall consider the same for consideration of candidature of petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Level I pursuant to advertisement dated 16.12.2022, under the category of General (EWS) on merits and shall pass the order expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of representation.
9. In case, the order goes against the petitioner, she would be at liberty to take the legal recourse as available in law.
10. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /96