Order : NUPUR BHATI, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be allowed the writ petition by an appropriate writ, order or direction:- “1- The result dated 15.12.2023 for the post of Constable (Sweeper) (Female) for State of Rajasthan (Annex.14) be quashed and set aside with all consequential directions. 2. The respondents may kindly be directed to accord appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable (Sweeper) (Female) with all consequential directions.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents have issued an advertisement dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure-5) inviting applications for recruitment on the post of Constable (Sweeper) (Female) in Border Security Force. The petitioner having all the requisites filed an application along with the relevant documents. The respondents initiated the selection process in three phases. The first phase- a written examination i.e. CBT (Computer Based Test), second phase required to undergo Physical Standard Test (PST) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and thereafter, the third phase candidates were required to appear for documentation and trades test followed by Detailed Medical Examination and Review Medical Examination. The petitioner cleared all the stages of the examination. Thereafter, the Board of Officers shortlisted and prepared list of candidates, enumerating six times the allotted vacancies who were called for third phase of selection in which the petitioner name was also mentioned. The petitioner participated in the third phase as well after which the Board of Officers was constituted for scrutiny of the fitness of the candidates after which the final result/merit 15.12.2023 (Annexure-14) was published by the respondents on their official web portal wherein the name of three candidates was present including name of the petitioner, however, in the list there was a remark due to a tie between candidates namely Ms.Pooja Bai Saini and the petitioner. 3. In view of the conditions laid down in the advertisement (Annexure-5), the candidate namely Ms. Pooja Bai Saini was selected on the basis of her age, despite securing the same marks as the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved of the same preferred the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of filing the present writ petition, this fact that the petitioner was not selected while one Ms. Pooja Bai Saini was selected on the basis of her age, despite securing the same marks as the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved of the same preferred the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of filing the present writ petition, this fact that the petitioner was not selected while one Ms. Pooja Bai Saini was selected on account of her age, was not known to the petitioner. She submits that only when the reply to the present writ petition was filed, the petitioner came to know that she has not been selected on the ground that she was younger than the candidate namely Ms.Pooja Bai Saini and therefore, Ms.Pooja Bai Saini has been given preference over the present petitioner, despite the fact that both the petitioner and Pooja Bai Saini have secured 66.489 marks. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have failed to place on record any documents in order to show that Ms.Pooja Bai Saini was older in age than the petitioner. She also submits that the respondents be directed by the Court to place on record the document indicating the date of birth of the Pooja Bai Saini inasmuch as the petitioner is unable to prove otherwise, the date of birth as indicated in the reply is incorrect. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submits that the advertisement dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure-5), contains a specific conditions that in case of a tie in marks between the candidates, the candidate older in age will be placed higher in the merit list and thus while adhering to the conditions laid down in the advertisement, the respondents have reflected name of the candidate Pooja Bai Saini in the merit list as she was older than the petitioner. He also submits that the candidate Ms.Pooja Bai Saini has not been impleaded as a party respondent in the writ petition despite the fact that she has been selected. He also submits that the documents reflecting the age of the selected candidate Ms.Pooja Bai Saini is not required to be produced on record as the reply has been filed with the affidavit of Deputy Inspector General (Principal Staff Officer) Border Security Force at HQ Rajashtan Frontier, Jodhpur. He also submits that the documents reflecting the age of the selected candidate Ms.Pooja Bai Saini is not required to be produced on record as the reply has been filed with the affidavit of Deputy Inspector General (Principal Staff Officer) Border Security Force at HQ Rajashtan Frontier, Jodhpur. He further submits that the date of birth of Ms.Pooja Bai Saini as reflected in their reply is 01.11.1998, while the date of birth of the petitioner is 09.07.2001 therefore adhering to the conditions, Pooja Bai Saini was selected instead of the petitioner because of tie between them as both secured same marks. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that by way of filing the reply, the rejection letter of the petitioner dated 25.01.2024 (Annexure-R/4), has also been placed on record in which it has been specifically indicated that even though the petitioner and candidate namely Ms.Pooja Bai Saini have secured the same marks i.e. 66.489, the candidature of Ms.Pooja has been selected on the basis of her being older in age. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. This Court finds that there is specific condition in the advertisement (Annexure-5) at S.no.10 with the heading ‘Resolution of tie cases’ which clearly mentions that in case of tie in marks, the candidate older in age will be placed higher in the merit list. The relevant condition in the advertisements reproduced as under:- (10) Resolution of Tie Cases:- In case of tie in marks, the candidate older in age will be placed higher in the merit list. If the candidates of similar date of birth have obtained equal number of marks, the candidates whose name comes first in the alphabetic order (English) will be kept higher in the merit list.” 10. Moreover, upon perusal of the documents taken on record by the petitioner (Annexure-14), which is the final result of the petitioner to the various trades in the post of Constable Tradesman including Sweeper, it has been specifically mentioned that in case of a tie between the candidates, in order to resolve the tie, the candidate with older age would be placed higher in merit list. The relevant condition of the final result (Annexure-14) is reproduced as under:- “2. Merit of candidates qualified in all stages of examination has been prepared on the basis of marks secured by them in Written Examination. The relevant condition of the final result (Annexure-14) is reproduced as under:- “2. Merit of candidates qualified in all stages of examination has been prepared on the basis of marks secured by them in Written Examination. Candidates having scored higher marks in the written examination have been placed higher in merit. In case, where more than one candidates have secured equal marks, the tie cases have been resolved by applying following methods one after another till the tie has been resolved:- (a) The candidates with older age placed higher in the merit list. (b) If the candidates with same date of birth have obtained equal marks, the candidate whose name comes first in the alphabetic order (English) kept higher in the merit list.” 11. This Court finds that the submissions of the petitioner that the respondents ought to produce the documents reflecting the date of birth of Ms.Pooja Bai Saini, is devoid of merit inasmuch as the respondents by way of filing their reply on affidavit have provided the details of the selected candidates, including the date of birth of both Pooja Bai Saini and the petitioner i.e. 01.11.1998 and 09.07.2001 respectively and further the petitioner is unable to prove otherwise in respect to the age of Pooja Bai Saini. 12. It is also seen that the petitioner has participated in the selection process with open eyes and there is no challenge laid to the conditions mentioned in the advertisement (Annexure-5) by the petitioner that in case of a tie, the candidates older in age would be placed higher in the merit list. Also, the rejection letter dated 25.01.2024 (Annexure-R/4) specifically points out that since Ms.Pooja Bai Saini was older than the petitioner, she was selected over the petitioner, however, the petitioner has not laid challenge to the rejection letter (Annexure-R/4). Further no objection has been raised by the petitioner by filing a rejoinder to show that the said rejection letter was never communicated to her and also has not disputed the age of the selected candidate, Pooja Bai Saini. 13. Further no objection has been raised by the petitioner by filing a rejoinder to show that the said rejection letter was never communicated to her and also has not disputed the age of the selected candidate, Pooja Bai Saini. 13. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no force in the writ petition inasmuch as the respondents, while adhering to the conditions mentioned in the advertisement (Annexure-5), have selected the candidate, Pooja Bai Saini taking into consideration the fact that she was older in age than the petitioner as there was a tie between the petitioner and Pooja Bai Saini upon securing same marks. 14. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Stay petition as well as all pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.