[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rakesh Chalia vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 8 April, 2026
Author: Anand Sharma
Bench: Anand Sharma
[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
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 11:55:13 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16299] (2 of 3) [CW-19242/2025]
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.kdvgZrk 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
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 11:55:13 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16299] (3 of 3) [CW-19242/2025]
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 a delay of more than one and a half year,
for which no explanation whatsoever, much less than sufficient
and cogent reasons, have been given by the petitioner.
10. In addition to above, as admitted by learned counsel for
the petitioner, appointments have already been given to the
selected candidates.
11. In view of the above, there is no scope of interference in
the present writ petition.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
hereby dismissed.
13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
19-AnilKC/-
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 11:55:13 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
