[2026:RJ-JD:16299]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19242/2025 Rakesh Chalia S/o Sitaram Chalia, Aged About 23 Years, Ward No. 8, Meghwalo Ka Mohalla, Barsingsar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Secondary Education Department, Rajasthan, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramdev Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : --

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

08/04/2026

1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition with the following prayers :-

“i. The impugned rejection letter dated 13.02.2024 (Annex.5) and impugned final list dated 20.06.2024 (Annex.6) may kindly be quashed qua the petitioner.

ii. The respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner.

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.”

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by letter dated 13.02.2024, whereby, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he was not possessing the requisite education qualification as per the advertisement.

3. Learned counsel submits that advertisement dated 08.07.2022 contains a condition that even the candidate appearing in last year of the requisite qualification examination, of which result has also been declared prior to the date of competitive examination shall also be treated as eligible candidate.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the aforesaid condition, since petitioner was pursuing BPEd degree course, therefore, he submitted application form for recruitment and since result of BPEd Examination final year was declared on 28.04.2023, which was much earlier than the date of competitive examination he was eligible to be considered in recruitment process. Learned counsel submits that thus rejection of the candidature by the respondents vide letter dated 13.02.2004 is against the condition of advertisement and is arbitrary.

5. Learned counsel also submits that other candidates who appeared and passed in BPEd examination along with the petitioner have been given appointment, yet claim of the petitioner has been ignored, whereas, in the recruitment process, the petitioner has secured sufficient marks for placing his name in the merit list.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

7. The relevant condition of the advertisement is as under :

“kS{kf.kd vgZrk laca/kh izko/kku%& in dh visf{kr “kS{kf.kd “

vgZrk ds vafre o’kZ esa lfEefyr gqvk gks ;k lfEefyr gksus okyk O;fDr Hkh vkosnu djus ds fy, ik= gksxk] fdarq mls vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr izfr;ksxh ijh{kk ls iwoZ “kSf{k.kd vgZrk vftZr djus dk lcwr nsuk gksxkA ”

8. As per the aforesaid condition, the candidate was required to show that he had already appeared in the final year examination of the requisite qualification post prior to last date for submitting application form, however, no proof whatsoever has been placed on record by the petitioner that up to the last day of filing of the application form, the petitioner has taken admission in the final year of BPEd. Merely, giving proof of result prior to date of competitive examination is not enough, as the candidate is required to fulfill both the conditions, i.e., taking admission prior to last date of filing of the application forms pursuant to advertisement, as well as declaration of result prior to the date of examination. Since, the petitioner has not placed any document on record to fulfill the first part of the condition nor has he pleaded in the memo of writ petition in this regard, therefore, the petitioners candidature was rightly rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 13.02.2024.

9. Otherwise also, rejection letter dated 13.02.2024 has been challenged by the petitioner by way of filing the writ petition on 25.09.2025, i.e., with