Yamini Pareek D/O Shri Brijesh ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7648 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

             D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1026/2021

Yamini Pareek D/o Shri Brijesh Pareek W/o Shri Abhishek Pareek,
Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 55, Brajlal Nagar,
Sardarpura Road, Malpura, Distt. Tonk (Raj.)
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, School
       Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3.     Anita Devi Daughter Of Mr. Vijay Singh, Merit No. Wl-
       22854, Serial No. 777, Application Id No. 201802251851
       (Provisional Appointment Order Dated 29.12.2020 - Iii
       Grade Teacher Level I) Through The Director, Elementary
       Education And Panchayati Raj (Elementary Education),
       Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4.     Mukesh Kumar Jat Son Of Mr. Girdhari Lal, Merit No. Wl-
       22855, Serial No. 778, Application Id No. 201802093538
       (Provisional Appointment Order Dated 29.12.2020 - Iii
       Grade Teacher Level I) Through The Director, Elementary
       Education And Panchayati Raj (Elementary Education),
       Rajasthan, Bikaner.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Laxmi Kant Sharma Malpura For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

Judgment

15/12/2021

This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned

Single Judge dated 29/11/2021. The brief facts are that the

petitioner had applied for the post of Teacher Grade-III pursuant

to advertisement dated 12/04/2018. In the Rajasthan Eligibility

(2 of 2) [SAW-1026/2021]

Examination for Teacher (in short "REET") she scored 70.67%

marks. Respondents No.3 and 4 also scored identical percentage.

The official respondents selected respondents No.3 and 4 in

preference to the petitioner by resorting to date of birth of the

candidates concerned. In the process reliance was placed on a

note appended to the recruitment advertisement which envisages

that in case of candidates scoring identical marks in the qualifying

examination, selections would be made on the basis of date of

birth; the senior candidate being preferred over the junior and in

the case of date of birth of the candidates being same, the

candidate with higher qualification would be preferred. Since the

petitioner was the youngest of the three candidates with identical

score, she could not be offered appointment. Learned Single Judge

found no breach of the rules or regulations and hence dismissed

the petition upon which, this appeal is filed. We do not find any

error in the action of the respondents or in the decision of the

learned Single Judge. The respondents had followed the pre-

decided criteria to break the deadlock in the event of more than

one candidates scoring identical marks in the qualifying

examination.

Nothing stated in this order or that in the order of the

learned Single Judge would prevent the petitioner from

approaching the authorities by making representation if she

chooses to.

With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.

                                    (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J                                                  (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

                                   Anil Goyal/BM Gandhi/04









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)