DBSAW NO.27/08. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.27/2008. IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3531/2000. Gayatri Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. Date of order:- July 16, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. G.S. Bapna for the appellant. Mr. B.L. Awasthi, Deputy Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT :- Heard Mr.G.S. Bapna, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.B.L. Awasthi, learned Deputy Government Counsel for the State and perused the order impugned. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25/9/2007 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in writ application No.3531/2000 dismissing the writ application. The appellant writ-petitioner had approached this Court in writ jurisdiction for issuance of writ of mandamus upon respondents to appoint her on the post of Primary School Teacher Grade-III pursuant to selections made for the year 1998-99 taking a plea that the candidates who secured lesser marks than her were appointed. DBSAW NO.27/08. 2 Learned Single Judge of this Court on appreciation of pleadings of the parties held that in absence of any material to show the person lower in merit has been given appointment, no relief can be granted to the writ-petitioner. Mr.G.S. Bapna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant tried to impress upon the Court with reference to Annexure-17 that writ- petitioner had secured 77.34% marks whereas, Ms.Bhawna Acharya who secured 76.2% marks was preferred over her. In reply, respondents have categorically stated that Ms.Bhawna Acharya had secured 81% marks thus, her case was considered over case of this appellant who secured 77.34% marks. In reply, it is also stated that advertisement was issued in 1998 whereas, the appellant writ-petitioner had completed the Bridge Course in the month of February 2000 whereas, Ms.Bhawna Acharya had completed the same much before issuance of the advertisement and thus she was entitled for extra marks and on that basis she secured 81% marks much above than the appellant. In view of the pleadings set-forth in reply of the instant case, no case has been made out alleging violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The action of the State-authorities in appointing Ms.Bhawna Acharya and by not appointing the writ-petitioner appellant, in no manner therefore, can be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable or without DBSAW NO.27/08. 3 jurisdiction. Faced with such situation, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. (NARAYAN ROY), CJ. anil