1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.668/2008. (ANURAG VS. DISST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BIKANER & ORS.) DATE OF ORDER : 23.04.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. S.N. Trivedi for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Chaudhary for the respondents. The petitioner and the respondent No.3 faced selection proceedings for the purpose of appointment as Lower Division Clerk in accordance with the Rajasthan Subordinate Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 and secured equivalent marks. The respondent No.1 chose to employ the respondent No.3, hence this petition for writ is preferred on the count that the petitioner being elder to the respondent No.3, should have been preferred while making appointment. A reliance is also placed by counsel for the petitioner upon a judgment of this Court in Anand Kumar Parashar & 25 ors. vs. State & ors. reported in 2007(2) WLC (Raj) – 334, wherein this Court held that “The Commission who is having higher academic qualification or is older in age if given preference in equivalence, it does not violate any right or provide cause to plead discrimination for the reason that a candidate younger in age has other opportunities to appointment vis-a-vis the candidates touching the outer limit of the prescribed age. Such criteria is 2 germane and rationale. Such candidates need such consideration as after crossing of the prescribed age, is having no opportunity to seek appointment.” In reply, the stand of the respondents is that the District Recruitment Committee found the respondent No.3 to be suitable for selection as he was having higher educational qualification vis-a-vis the petitioner. The petitioner is having qualification of Higher Secondary School Examination, whereas the respondent No.3 is a Graduate. This Court in the case of Anand Kumar Parashar (supra), while affirming a decision of Rajasthan Public Service Commission to give preference held that a candidate who is having higher academic qualification or is older in the age, if given preference in equivalence, it does not violate any right or provide cause to plead discrimination. In the instant matter too, a reasonable criteria is adopted by the respondents and, therefore, no right of the petitioner in any way is violated. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/