SBCWP NO.3435/05. SBCWP NO.6495/05. SBCWP NO.5125/06. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3435/2005. Girja Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6495/2005. Smt.Kalpana Bhardwaj Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 3) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5125/2006. Smt.Rajshree Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : 4/9/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Tanveer Ahmed Shri Ram Pratap Saini and Shri Arvind Bhardwaj for the petitioners. Ms. Priyanka Pareek, Deputy Government Counsel. Shri S.N. Kumawat for RPSC. ****** In all these cases, petitioners have challlenged action of the respondents whereby they are not considering their candidature for appointment on the post of Primary Teacher. Contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that respondents cannot insist that petitioners should be having qualification of Secondary SBCWP NO.3435/05. SBCWP NO.6495/05. SBCWP NO.5125/06. 2 School Examination with the compulsory subject of Hindi, English and Mathematics. Petitioners do not have one of these subjects in their Seconodary School Examination. They were therefore adjudged not eligible in view of the provisions contained in Rule 266(3). Petitioners have contended that this criteria was not informed in advance and therefore respondents cannot suddenly apply a new criteria. Respondents have contested this submission and submitted that the criteria was duly informed vide advertisement which clearly provided that candidates must have three out of five subjects namely: (a) Mathematics, (b) English & (c) Hindi. It is contended that validity of Rule 266(3) which provide requirement was challenged before this Court earlier which controversy was settled by this Court in Smt.Sarita & 10 Ors. Vs. State & Anr. (WLC (Raj.) 2006(2) 769. To the same effect, judgment was passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Km.Sarala Nagar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (WLC (Raj.) 2006(3) 553. In view of above referred to judgments, directions in the nature as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be issued. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil