[2025:RJ-JP:45516] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1813/2010 Smt Saroj Kumari D/o Shri Amar Singh, aged about 37 years, R/o V/P Jakhal (Khedron Ki Dhani), Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Chief Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Zila Parishad, Banswara, Rajasthan. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Directorate Office, Bikaner, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sunita Mehla, for Mr. Sanjay Mehla Mr. Nagendra Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 12/11/2025 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking appointment to the post of Teacher, Grade-III for consideration of her candidature of the petitioner in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in Appeal (Civil) No. 4417/2002, decided on 30.07.2002. 2. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material made available on record. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on 05.02.2010 in regard to the advertisement issued in the year 1998. [2025:RJ-JP:45516] (2 of 3) [CW-1813/2010] 4. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma (Supra) has observed as under:- "1. The claims of the writ petitioners should be considered afresh in the light of this judgment vis a vis the candidates appointed on or after 18.11.99 or those in the select list who are yet to be appointed. On such consideration, if those writ petitioners are found to have superior merit in case the bonus marks of 10% and/or 5% are excluded, they should be offered appointments, if necessary, by displacing the candidates appointed on or after 18.11.1999. 2. The appointments made upto 17.11.1999 need not be reopened and re-considered in the light of the law laid down in this judgment. 3. Writ Petition No. 542/2000 filed in this Court under Article 32 is hereby dismissed as it was filed nearly one year after the judgment of the High Court and no explanation has been tendered for not approaching the High Court under Article 226 at an earlier point of time. Before parting, we must say that we have moulded the relief as above on a consideration of special facts and circumstances of this case acting within the frame-work of powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. In so far as the relief has been granted or modified in the manner aforesaid, this judgment may not be treated as a binding precedent in any case that may arise in future. Another parting observation. While we realize the need to generate better employment opportunities to the people of rural backward areas and an affirmative action in this regard is not ruled out, any such action should be within the framework of constitutional provisions relating to equality. Equalising unequals by taking note of their handicaps and limitations is not impermissible under the Constitution provided that it seeks to achieve the goal of promoting overall equality. However, measures taken by the State on considerations of localism are not sanctioned by the constitutional mandate of equality. As indicated in the judgment, any attempt at giving weightage to the rural candidates should be backed up by scientific study and considerations germane to constitutional guarantee of equality. The appeals arising out of the SLPs are disposed of accordingly. The impugned judgments of the High [2025:RJ-JP:45516] (3 of 3) [CW-1813/2010] Court stand modified to that extent. The writ petition mentioned above is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs." 5. Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically observed that the relief has been moulded on a consideration of special facts and circumstances of the case acting within the frame-work of powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. It was further observed that the said judgment may not be treated as a binding precedent in any case that may arise in future. 6. In view of the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma (supra), the Court finds no merit in this case for consideration of candidature of the petitioner after a lapse of years. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 7. Stay application and all pending application/s, if any, also stand/s dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Gaurav Srivastava /35