[2026:RJ-JP:7800-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3032/2021 Ladan Devi D/o Hukama Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Utada Fatak Ke Bahar, Kishangarh, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Registrar General. 2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 18/02/2026 1. At the first instance, matter was passed-over. Even in the second round, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- "i) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby direct the respondents to call the entire record along with Original OMR Sheet No. 101567 and thereby compare the same with the Original Answer Key. ii) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be directed to award proper i.e. 52 marks to the petitioner and thereby issue fresh result by [2026:RJ-JP:7800-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-3032/2021] including the roll no. of petitioner and thereby call the petitioner in the Job Test and Interview Process and if the petitioner succeed in the same, then she be given appointment to the post of Driver in the recruitment to the post of Chauffeur for RHC and Driver for RSJA, RSLSA and District Courts-2020. (iii) Pass any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner. iv) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner." 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is not having the required qualification as mentioned in the advertisement. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon para 2 of the reply, which reads as under:- "That as far as prayer No. (i) is concerned, the result has already been declared, hence, this prayer is liable to be withdrawn and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Further, for prayer (ii) it is humbly submitted that as per office record, the petitioner has secured 52 marks in the written test, therefore, on this part, there remains no dispute. It is paramount to mention here that as per clause 4(iii) of the advertisement dated 22.07.2020 for the post of Chauffeur / Driver, as well as Rule 31 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, (hereinafter referred as Rules of 2002), the candidate/petitioner was required to possess Driving license for Light Motor Vehicle and Transport Vehicle license with three years of experience by the last date of submitting application form i.e. 31.08.2020. It is humbly [2026:RJ-JP:7800-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-3032/2021] submitted that the petitioner has enclosed copy of her driving license as Annexure- 2 (Page 25) with the writ petition, wherein, it is shown that she is having driving license to drive MCWG from 02.09.2015, LMV from 02.09.2015 & Transport Vehicles from 15.09.2020. It is pertinent to mention here that the last date of submitting the application form was 31.08.2020 and humble petitioner has submitted her online application from on 26.08.2020 (Annexure-3) wherein there is no mention of Transport Vehicle license as same came to be issued on 15.09.2020 i.e; after last date of submitting the application form and thus, petitioner was ineligible to participate in the present selection process for not possessing the requisite license before the last date of submitting the applications form i.e; 31.08.2020. The bare perusal of driving License (Annexure-02) and Online Application form (Annexure- 03) shows the crystal clear difference as in Online Application form (Annexure-03) it is clear that till the last date of submission of application form, the petitioner was not having license to drive Transport Vehicle." 5. Considering the reply submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner is not having the required qualification as mentioned in the advertisement, no interference is called for. 6. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Monika/Aman/41