##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:13685]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4361/2021

Nitesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Kasara Bazar, Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Department Of Elementary Education Cum Panchayati Raj (Elementary Education) Government Of Rajasthan, Govt.

Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saumil Sharma for

Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order

01/04/2026

1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the

following prayer:-

"(a) By an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to consider candidature and select the petitioner as Teacher Grade III Level-2 English (Non TSP) on the basis of merits under General Category pursuant to Advertisement No.1/2018 dated 31.07.2018

with natural consequences thereof.

(b) Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of

the petitioner."

(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 09:05:05 AM)

(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 03:19:18 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:13685] (2 of 4) [CW-4361/2021] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma submits that the issue as involved in the present writ petition has already been considered and decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5205/19 titled as Ankul Singhal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. dated 22.07.2019. Learned counsel further submits that the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Ankul Singh (supra) was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in DB Civil Writ Petition No.545/2020 titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Ankul Singhal, which came to be rejected vide order dated 23.08.2023 and thereafter, even the Special Leave Petition

preferred before the Hon'ble Apex court came to be dismissed.

3. In view of the above, learned counsel submits that all the identical petitions have been decided and all the candidates who were denied appointment on the same controversy, have been given appointment by the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that this is the only petition which is left and all other writ petitions on the similar issue have already been decided by

granting appropriate relief.

4. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

06.04.2021 has passed the following order:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had participated in the selection process for the post of Teacher Grade-

III Level-II (English).

Learned counsel submitted that the respondents have declared the result on 11.01.2021 and in un-reserved Male Category,

the cut-off was 66.789%.

(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 09:05:05 AM)

(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 03:19:18 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:13685] (3 of 4) [CW-4361/2021]

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has secured 67.00% and as such, he was entitled to be given appointment and less meritorious person has been given appointment

by the respondents.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner approached the respondents by submitting a representation highlighting the fact that the petitioner had passed his B.Ed. Examination in July, 2010 and as per notification issued by National Council for Teacher Education dated 13.11.2019, the minimum percentage of marks in Graduation was not to be applicable to those candidates who had taken admission in Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) or Bachelor of Elementary

Education(B.El. Ed.) prior to 29.07.2011.

Learned counsel submitted that since the said notification has been made applicable from 29.07.2011 and the petitioner had already taken admission and passed his B.Ed. Examination in July, 2010, the petitioner could not have been rendered ineligible for

appointment.

Issue notice of the writ petition as wel