IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13457/09. Lekhraj Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13485/09. Jitendra Tiwari & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 3) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14327/09. Lal Chand & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 4) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14828/09. Pawan Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 5) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7/10. Prem Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 6) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4152/10. Rajendra Kumar Chipa & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- March 31, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Rajendraq Soni, Shri V.D. Gathala, Shri Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj and Shri Raghunandan Sharma for the petitioners. Shri S.N. Kumawat, Additional Advocate General for RPSC. Shri Dinesh Yadav, Additional Advocate General. Shri Ashwini Kumar Jaiman on behalf of Shri Ashok Gaur, Shri Ankur Srivastava on behalf of Shri R.N. Mathur, Shri Vinod Gupta on behalf of Shri Virendra Lodha and Shri Vijay Dutt for the interveners. BY THE COURT:-
All these aforesaid six writ petitions were filed by the petitioners under apprehension that respondents might appoint the candidates from general stream on the post of Teacher Grade-III in Sanskrit Education who possess the qualification of Senior Secondary treating the same equivalent to Varishtha Upadhyaya, which in fact is the requisite qualification for such appointment.
2) Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Rajasthan Public Service Commission submitted that the respondents are considering only such candidates for appointment on the said post who possess the qualification of Varishtha Upadhyaya with B.S.T.C. or Senior Secondary. Such an assertion has been in para 4 of the reply filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission.
3) Hence, in view of the clarification made by the learned Additional Advocate General, apprehension of the petitioners appear to be more illusory than real.
4) In the light of the above, nothing remains to be decided in these six writ petitions which all are accordingly dismissed.
anil (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.