Dismissed¶26

Himanshi D/O Ghanshyam Das Gupta v. State of Rajasthan through Principal Education Secretary

Rajasthan HC21 Apr 2025CW/14143/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Teacher Grade-II (Sanskrit) recruitment; advertisement dated 13.07.2016; 2295 vacancies; educational qualification required before date of examination; B.Ed. acquired after examination; candidature rejection upheld; Monika v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 747/2023 (decided 05.10.2023) relied on; Vijay Kumar Mishra (Apex Court) referred; Rule 17, Rules of 2021; Rajasthan Public Service Commission; Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench; Anand Sharma, J.; decided 21/04/2025; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14143/2018 dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The respondents rightly rejected the petitioner's candidature, as she had failed to possess/submit the requisite educational qualification prior to the date of examination; the writ petition is dismissed. ¶25

Himanshi D/O Ghanshyam Das Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Education Secretary — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:16655]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14143/2018

¶4

Himanshi D/o Ghanshyam Das Gupta, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ward No. 15, Jasoriya Colony, Khairthal, Alwar, Rajasthan

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶8

1. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner 3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Ajmer

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Amir Khan for Mr. Ram Pratap Saini
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Vaibhav Pareek for Mr. Nitin Jain
		Mr. Anjum Parveen for
		Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy.G.C

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

21/04/2025

¶14

In the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction against the respondents for calling the petitioner in the counseling process for the post of Teacher Grade-II (Sanskrit). It has been stated that in the memo of writ petition that as many as 2295 vacancies of Sanskrit subject on the post of Teacher Grade-II were advertised and applications were invited for eligible persons against the advertisement dated 13.07.2016. It was mentioned in the advertisement that so far as eligibility with regard to education qualification is concerned, the candidate is required to possess qualification of graduate or equivalent examination with concerned

[2025:RJ-JP:16655]

[CW-14143/2018]

(2 of 3)

optional subject and degree or diploma in education recognized by National Counsel for Teacher Education NCTE). It was also mentioned in the advertisement that a candidate was required to submit his/her education qualification before the examination to be conducted in the aforesaid examination. The petitioner states that although on the date of examination, she was not possessing degree of B.A. however, after sometime, she has acquired the required degree of B.Ed., therefore, she ought to have been considered and appointed by the respondents on the post of Teacher Grade-II (Sanskrit).

¶19

The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition opposing the prayer made by the petitioner and it has been stated that the conditions of the advertisement were quite clear that the education qualification required for holding the post of Teacher Grade-II were to be placed before the respondents prior to the date of examination and in the instant case, the petitioner has failed to do so therefore, he is not entitled for consideration and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment in the case of Monika Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected matters in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 747/2023 decided on 05.10.2023, in Para 13 of the aforesaid judgments states as under:

¶20

“Therefore, considering the fact that the advertisement dated 28.04.2022 was issued in conformity with Rule 17 of the Rules of 2021; that it is an admitted position that the appellant did not possess the requisite educational qualification on or before the cut-off date, as prescribed in consonance with Rule 17 of the Ruels of 2021; that this Court while exercising

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:16655]

[CW-14143/2018]

writ jurisdiction, cannot issue any directions which are dehors the statutory rules, which provide for possession/submission of proof having acquired the requisite educational qualification on the cut-off date i.e. date of written examination and relying upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Vijay Kumar Mishra (supra), this Court is inclined to dismiss the present appeal.”

¶25

In the light of above, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the respondents have rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner.

¶26

In view of the above, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.

¶27

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶28

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶29

NEERU/223

Himanshi D/O Ghanshyam Das Gupta v. State of Rajasthan through Principal Education Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshi D/O Ghanshyam Das Gupta v. State of Rajasthan through Principal Education Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashik Ali Vs State and Ors.

Nathu Lal Gupta Vs Rajasthan State Coopertative T

Dr Mali Ram Aswal Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Smt Bhagwati Devi Wife of Shri Keshar Dev Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Prem Chand Sain Vs State Forest Department Anr.

Avinash Guganiya Son of Late Shri Mamraj Vs the State of Rajasthan