KAUSHALYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, in the instant writ application, aggrieved of the order dated 21st February, 2012, passed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission', for short), has approached this Court with the prayer under the relief clause, which reads thus: - -

(2.) FOR the purpose of adjudication of the controversy raised by the petitioner in the instant writ application, the essential material facts needs to be first noticed. The petitioner submitted application for consideration of her candidature, in response to the advertisement dated 8th August, 2008, whereby the Commission invited the applications from the eligible candidates for the appointment on the post of Teacher Grade -II in various subjects including the Science subject. The advertisement was followed by a corrigendum dated 4th August, 2010, wherein the number of vacancies was increased. The educational qualifications were also modified with retrospective effect vide Notification Number F.2(6)DOP/A -II/84 dated 16th April, 2010. For the post at Code Number 42 i.e., Science; the candidate was required to possess three optional subjects i.e., Zoology, Botany and Chemistry. The petitioner had the above three compulsory subjects in her Senior Secondary, but in her Graduation, she had Botany, Chemistry and Computer Application. The result of the examination was declared on 20th June, 2011, with cut off marks of the selected candidates and the information was also reflected on the Website of the Commission. However, the answer key was not published in the newspapers. The petitioner's name found place in the reserved list at number 1443 -AR -A and her result was declared on 3rd November, 2011. She submitted her application form with original documents for verification and counseling on 6th November, 2011. The respondent Commission vide impugned communication dated 21st February, 2012, rejected her candidature for she did not have "Botany" in her Graduation. But in fact, she did not have "Zoology" as the third subject, which she additionally acquired in the year 2012.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.