##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:6079]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9685/2020

Sulochna Parasar D/o Vishwanath Parasar W/o Devendra Kumar

Sharma, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Uit Colony, Near

Mahalaxmi College, Pratapnagar, Jodhpur (Raj).

----Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,

Department Of Sanskrit Education, Government

Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan Iind Floor,

Block 6, Shiksha Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur.

3. The Joint Dierctor, Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan, Iind

Floor, Block 6, Shiksha Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur.

4. The Divisional Education Officer (Sanskrit), Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Singh.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Soni for

Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

03/02/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following

prayers:-

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this

Hon'ble court may very graciously be pleased to accept

and allow this writ petition and further be pleased to

issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the

nature thereof thereby:

i) The action of the respondents while not considering

the candidature of the petitioner for review DPC for the

post of Senior Teacher subject Sanskrit despite

possessing requisite qualification and considered for

other aspirants similarly situated to the petitioner as

per rules of 1978 may kindly be declared illegal,

unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative to

Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

and/or

ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to consider

the candidature of petitioner while reviewing DPC of

earlier years for promotion on the post of Senior

Teacher subject Sanskrit from the date when junior to

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 04:58:20 PM)

(Downloaded on 10/02/2026 at 12:41:40 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6079] (2 of 6) [CW-9685/2020]

petitioner was given promotion with all consequential

benefits.

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.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, are that

the petitioner was appointed as Teacher Grade III in the Sanskrit

Education Department under the Rajasthan Sanskrit Education

Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 vide order dated 10.12.1987,

and her services were regularized vide order dated 20.11.1990,

placing her at Seniority No. 2513. Under the Rules of 1978, the

requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Senior Teacher

(Sanskrit) was Graduate/Shiksha Shastri. Subsequently, the Rules

were amended vide notification dated 10.06.2008. Since

candidates possessing B.A. with Sanskrit were being denied

promotion, similarly situated aspirants approached the Rajasthan

Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, which directed the State to

consider their cases for promotion from the date their juniors were

promoted, holding that the amendment was prospective. The said

directions were affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in

Bhuwneshwar Pd. Trivedi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: DBSAW

No.986/2015 and connected matters vide order dated 26.10.2018.

Pursuant thereto, the respondents conducted review DPCs and

promoted eligible Teacher Grade III candidates, including trained

graduates with B.Ed., to the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) vide

order dated 27.02.2020. Thereafter, a provisional seniority list

dated 28.05.2020 was issued inviting objections. The petitioner

was surprised to find that her name was not included therein,

despite the aforesaid judicial directions. The seniority list dated

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 04:58:20 PM)

(Downloaded on 10/02/2026 at 12:41:40 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6079] (3 of 6) [CW-9685/2020]

21.11.2019 reveals that several candidates junior to the petitioner

had already been promoted. As per the said list of 3720

candidates, the petitioner stood at Seniority