Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sachidanand Abhinandan Pahadiya, Son ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 January, 2023
Author: Sudesh Bansal
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2679/2022
1. Riteesh Kumar Jyotishi S/o Bhagirath Prasad Jyotishi,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Gola Ka Bas,
Distt. Alwar (Raj.).
2. Rahul Sharma S/o Shri Ramji Lal, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Village And Post Saiwar, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Distt.
Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Jagan Singh, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village Bhuma Chhota, Tehsil Laxmangarh,
Distt. Sikar (Raj.).
4. Sachin Achara S/o Devi Singh Achara, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Village Katrathal, Distt. Sikar (Raj.).
5. Gopesh S/o Shyam Sundar Sharma, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Village Bhainsrawat, Post - Govindgarh, Distt.
Alwar (Raj.).
6. Sawai Singh Bhati S/o Bhanwar Singh Bhati, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Karni Nagar, Lalgarh, Distt. Bikaner (Raj.).
7. Shishram S/o Shri Ratan Lal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Karanga Bara, Tehsil Fatehpur, Distt. Sikar (Raj.).
8. Vikas Meena S/o Ramesh Chand Meena, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Maulai, Post Farrashpura, Distt. Dausa (Raj.).
9. Tara Chand Ruhela S/o Jeeta Ram Ruhela, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village Bairas, Laxamangarh, Distt. Sikar
(Raj.).
10. Suresh Kumar Mahala S/o Dhukal Ram Mahala, Aged
About 38 Years, R/o Shyam Nagar, Distt. Jhunjhunu
(Raj.).
11. Vikash Kumar Jangir S/o Shri Omprakash Jangir, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Village And Post Deenwa Jatan,
Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar (Raj.).
12. Vijay Singh S/o Mohan Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Mardatuchoti, Distt. Sikar (Raj.).
13. Sunil Kumar S/o Diwan Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Hamirwas, Bada, Distt. Churu (Raj.).
14. Vijendra Singh Rathore S/o Himmat Singh Rathore, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o Village And Post Harsore, Distt.
Nagaur (Raj.).
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM)
(2 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
15. Vishvajeet Singh Chauhan S/o Shri Shailendra Singh
Chauhan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village And Post
Peeth Simalwara, Distt. Dungarpur (Raj.).
16. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Mangilal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Chachiwad Bara, Fatehpur, Distt. Sikar (Raj.).
17. Ravindra Sherawat S/o Radheshyam Sherawat, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Charanwas, Kalwar, Distt. Jaipur
(Raj.).
18. Upendra Kumar Vyas S/o Ramgopal Vyas, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Nathawalan, Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
19. Suresh Choudhary S/o Hanuman Lal Choudhary, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Dheara Jorner, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
20. Sanjay Kumawat S/o Shri Kailash Kumawat, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Lal Kothi, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
21. Vimlesh Palawat S/o Shri Ashok Singh Palawat, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Choudhary Coloncy, Sikar Road,
Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
22. Shankar Lal Sharma S/o Hanuman Sahay Sharma, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Village And Post Udawala, Distt.
Dausa (Raj.).
23. Sudarshan Jugtawat S/o Shri Arvind Jugtawat, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Balotra, Distt.
Barmer (Raj.).
24. Girdhari Lal Sharma S/o Prabhu Dayal Sharma, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Village Sohkhari, Kathumar, Distt.
Alwar (Raj.).
25. Vinod Choudhary S/o Laxman Ram Jat, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village And Post Bindayaka, Distt. Jaipur
(Raj.).
26. Ravindra Sharma S/o Shri Radheshyam Sharma, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Bhuma Baka, Tehsil Laxmangarh,
Distt. Sikar (Raj.).
27. Suresh Kumar Meghwal S/o Shrawan Kumar, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Village And Post Nechhawa, Laxmangarh,
Distt. Sikar (Raj.).
28. Rajendra Kumar S/o Heera Ram Vishnoi, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Village And Post Ramdeora, Jaisalmer (Raj.).
29. Yuvraj Choudhary S/o Shri Bagwan Sahay Choudhary,
Aged About 26 Years, R/o Achrol, Jamwaramgarh, Distt.
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM)
(3 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
Jaipur (Raj.).
30. Ved Prakash Meena S/o Shri Ramswaroop Meena, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Naravalli Dang, Sapotra, Karauli
(Raj.).
31. Suresh Vishnoi S/o Shri Manga Ram, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Soorsagar, Distt. Jodhpur (Raj.).
32. Surendra Kumar S/o Chandra Ram, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Ranasar, Kuchaman, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.).
33. Rakesh Kumar Gurjar S/o Prem Singh Gurjar, Aged About
21 Years, R/o Naharkhora, Sikrai, Distt. Dausa (Raj.).
34. Rakesh Saini S/o Chaturbhuj Saini, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Phagi, Saipur, Ditt. Jaipur (Raj.).
35. Sher Singh S/o Budh Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Village And Post Dhadholi, Distt. Alwar (Raj.).
36. Chandan Kumar Chhangani S/o Shri Kishan Lal
Chhangani, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village And Post
Khairthal, Distt. Alwar (Raj.).
37. Raju Lal Yadav S/o Gyarsi Lal Yadav, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Village And Post Phagi, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
38. Vijendra Singh Rajawat S/o Mahaveer Singh Rajawat,
Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village And Post Baswa, Distt.
Dausa (Raj.).
39. Vinit Kumawat S/o Shivji Ram Kumawat, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Kishangarh, Distt. Ajmer (Raj.).
40. Rameshwer Prasad S/o Jagdish Prasad Meena, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Fatehpur, Digod, Distt. Kota (Raj.).
41. Teerthendra Choudhary S/o Kishna Ram Choudhary, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Sanjay Colony, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.).
42. Gulab Singh S/o Shri Doji Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Village And Post Kharsanvi, Distt. Alwar (Raj.).
43. Rajkumar Jaga S/o Raghuvir Prasad Jaga, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Bamanwas, Distt. Sawaimadhopur (Raj.).
44. Sanjay Saini S/o Kailash Chand Saini, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Manosar, Bindayaka, Jaipur (Raj.).
45. Rajendra Choudhary S/o Shankar Lal Choudhary, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Awaniya Bagru, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
46. Ravibhan Singh Rajawat S/o Chandrabhan Singh Rajawat,
Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village And Post Todabhim,
Distt. Karauli (Raj.).
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM)
(4 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
47. Rajesh S/o Hiram Sharan, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Bherusary, Distt. Hanumangarh (Raj.).
48. Vikramjeet S/o Richh Pal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Village And Post Dholipal, Distt. Dholpur (Raj.).
49. Vikash Kumar Khandal S/o Hanuman Datt Sharma, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Kakor Uniyara, Distt. Tonk (Raj.).
50. Surendra Singh S/o Harpal Singh Solanki, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Village Baru, Tehsil Bap, Distt. Jodhpur (Raj.).
51. Satish Kumar S/o Shri Ramawtar, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Indersar, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
52. Suraj Prakash Bairwa S/o Shri Hariram Bairwa, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Village And Post Abhaneri, Baswa,
Distt. Dausa (Raj.).
53. Sanjay Kumar S/o Roopi Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Barodakan, Kathumar, Distt. Alwar (Raj.).
54. Vishnu Sharma S/o Mahesh Chand Sharma, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Bhawan City, Distt. Sawaimadhopur (Raj.).
55. Ravi Aaswani S/o Rajkumar Aaswani, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Sindhi Colony, Distt. Pali (Raj.).
56. Ritesh Kumar Dhaker S/o Shankar Lal Dhaker, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Gopal Niwas, Bijoliya, Distt. Bhilwara
(Raj.).
57. Vijay Pal Singh S/o Ami Lal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
Village And Post Chirawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
58. Suresh Kumar Bishnoi S/o Veera Ram Bishnoi, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Village And Post Siyago Ki Dhani,
Distt. Barmer (Raj.).
59. Vikas Kumar S/o Jagmal Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Village And Post Malsar, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
60. Ram Sahay Takhar S/o Jagdish Prasad Jakhar, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Jhotwara, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
61. Satyawan Singh Gurjar S/o Lallu Ram Gurjar, Aged About
22 Years, R/o Kherlawas, Hansmahal, Bassi, Distt. Jaipur
(Raj.).
62. Rakesh Kumar S/o Kumbha Ram, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Sikar Dhod, Distt. Sikar (Raj.).
63. Raj Kumar Meena S/o Babu Lal Meena, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Apex International School, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
64. Sarjeet Singh S/o Sardar Singh, Aged About 42 Years,
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM)
(5 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
R/o Dudiyo Wali Sefraguwar, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
65. Sohan Singh S/o Shyam Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Village And Post Nadsar, Distt. Jodhpur (Raj.).
66. Sumraj Singh Gurjar S/o Amar Singh Gurjar, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Village And Post Jatwara Suroth, Distt.
Karauli (Raj.).
67. Sanjay Kumar Rathor S/o Giriraj Kumar Rathore, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o Govind Nagar, Devpura, Distt. Bundi
(Raj.).
68. Ravindra Singh S/o Suresh Singh, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o Village And Post Gadakhera, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
69. Vikash Saini S/o Birdi Chand Saini, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Nai Ki Thadi, Lalwas, Ramgarh, Jaipur (Raj.).
70. Irshad Ahmed S/o Yusuf Ali Khan, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o Village And Post Tabasar, Malsisar, Jhunjunu (Raj.).
71. Subhash Jangid S/o Lalchand Jangid, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Goan Hotel, Sikar Road, Harmara, Jaipur
(Raj.).
72. Virendra Kumar Gurjar S/o Rang Lal Gurjar, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Ashikpura, Baswa, Distt. Dausa (Raj.).
73. Indu Kumar Sahu S/o Raghuveer Prasad, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Mohanpura, Indergarh, Distt. Bundi (Raj.).
74. Satyaveer Singh S/o Hoshiyar Singh, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Ghardana Khurd, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
75. Sanjay Kumar S/o Nihal Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Village Tamba Kheri, Tehsil Rajgarh, Distt. Churu (Raj.).
76. Rahul Jatav S/o Bhagwati Prasad, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o 31 Years, R/o Village And Post Bad Pad, Distt. Alwar
(Raj.).
77. Ramsingh Phagna S/o Shri Udai Ram Gurjar, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Village And Post Bagru, Sanganer,distt.
Jaipur (Raj.).
78. Deepak Kumar S/o Mahendra Kumar, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Village And Post Bhojraj Ka Kalgaon, Distt.
Alwar (Raj.).
79. Rakesh Kumar Khatik S/o Ram Chandra Khatik, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Village And Post Raghunathpura,
Distt. Chittogarh (Raj.).
80. Vishal Raheja S/o Puran Chand Raheja, Aged About 30
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM)
(6 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Purani Abadi, Near Krishna
Mandir, Distt. Sriganganagar (Raj.).
81. Rajendra Singh S/o Ramji Lal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Village And Post Seeth, Tehsil Udaipurwati, Distt.
Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
82. Umesh Kumar S/o Suresh Kumar, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Village And Post Hansalsar, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
83. Surendra Kumar S/o Chandra Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Village And Post Ranasar, Tehsil-Kuchaman, Distt.
Nagaur (Raj.).
84. Satendra Singh S/o Laxmi Narayan, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Village And Post Nahila, Distt. Dholpur (Raj.).
85. Sunder Lal Saini S/o Mangal Ram Saini, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Village And Post Jaisinghpura, Tehsil Rajgarh,
Distt. Alwar (Raj.).
86. Shravan Singh Rathore S/o Mahendra Singh Rathore,
Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village And Post Sewari, Tehsil
Bali, Distt. Pali (Raj.).
87. Subhash Gurjar S/o Shri Ram Chandra Gurjar, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Village And Post Theekariya, Distt.
Sikar (Raj.).
88. Vinod Singh Kushwah S/o Shri Sauram Singh Kushwah,
Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village And Post Mahwa, Distt.
Dausa (Raj.).
89. Saurabh Barot S/o Dinesh Barot, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Bakoto Ka Mohalla, Distt. Sirohi (Raj.).
90. Rohitash Kumar S/o Shri Data Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Village Govindpura, Distt. Shriganganagar (Raj.).
91. Ravindra Siyag S/o Mohan Ram, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Village Jagloo, Tehsil - Nokha, Distt. Bikaner (Raj.).
92. Rohit Khichar S/o Shri Rajiv Khichar, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Chak 20, Kyd, Distt. Bikaner (Raj.).
93. Radheshyam Prajapat S/o Prema Ram, Aged About 26
Years, Village And Post Bidasar, Distt. Churu (Raj.).
94. Shrawan Kumar Kantiwal S/o Mularam, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Village And Post Dhod, Distt. Sikar (Raj.).
95. Ram Dutt S/o Jagaml Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Village And Post Pandreu Tibba, Distt. Churu (Raj.).
96. Vikram Prajapat S/o Ashok Kumar Prajapat, Aged About
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM)
(7 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
25 Years, R/o Bojlal Road, Ward, Churu (Raj.).
97. Rajkumar Gochar S/o Devilal Gochar, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village And Post Samidhi, Distt. Bundi (Raj.).
98. Ram Niwas S/o Ramkumar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Barwali, Tehsil Nohar, Distt. Hanumangarh (Raj.).
99. Rajesh Sharma S/o Satyaaa Narayan Sharma, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Toll Tax, Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.).
100. Sumit Kumar Budaniya S/o Subhash Chandra, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Staff Selection
Board, Jaipur Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan
Agriculture Management Institute Premises Durgapura,
Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Revenue Board, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale
Lane, Opp. Collectorate Office Basant Vihar, Todarmal
Marg, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan 305001.
4. Brijesh Kumar Verma S/o Shri Kalu Ram Verma, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Nagina Masjid Ke Pass, Kishangarh
Renwal, Renwal, Jaipur (Raj.).
5. Abhishek Sonal S/o Shri Nandkishor Sonwal, Aged About
23 Years, R/o 99, New Colony, Mai Ki Thai, Ramgarh
Road, Jaipur (Raj.).
6. Krishan Yadav S/o Shri Hoshiar Singh, aged about 52
years, R/O VPO Panthroli, Tehsil Buhana, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
7. Chirag Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Vinod Joshi, aged about 29
years, R/o Village Talora, Tehsil Sabla, Disrtrict Dungarpur
(Raj.)
8. Tej Singh Bankawat S/o Shri Nand Singh Bankawat, aged
about 36 years, R/o Kalota Kundal, Dausa (Raj.)
9. Raj Kumar S/o Shri Jagmal Singh aged about 35 years,
R/o Bamla ki Dhani, Teetanwar Ked., District Jhunjhunu
(Raj.)
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM)
(8 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
10. Om Prakash Dhanka S/o Shri Shankar Lal Dhanka, aged
about 31 years, R/o Village Jhai, Post Bad ke Balaji, Tehsil
Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.)
11. Mahavir Singh Shekhawat S/o Mohan Singh, aged about
42 years, R/o Kesar Nagar, 200 ft. Byepassa, Bajari
Mandi, Panchyawala, District Jaipur (Raj.).
12. Nikita Sharma D/O Shri Ram Saran Sharma, Aged About
29 Years, R/o 68b Krishan Vatika A, Jamdoli, Agra Road,
12) District Jaipur, Roll No. 3577334.
13. Ashish Meena S/O Shri Govind Sahay Meena, Aged 13)
About 22 Years, R/o Village Post Piloda, District
Sawaimadhopura, Roll No. 3313904.
14. Anoop Maharshi S/O Shri Puranmal Maharshi, Aged About
27 Years, R/o VPO Molishar Bara, Teh. Churu, District
Churu, Roll No. 3105176.
15. Amrit Lal Roat S/O Shri Kalu Ram Roat, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village Kishnpura, Post Varda, The. Sagwara,
District Dungarpur, Roll No. 3058411.
16. Bhavesh Dendor S/O Shri Kaluram Dendor, Aged About
24 Years, R/o Village Madkola, Post Gowadi, Teh.
Sagwara, District Dungarpur, Roll No. 3385528.
17. Pravendra Kumar Mahar S/O Shri Narendra Kumar
Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Bahadurpur,
Post Bhopur, District Karauli, Roll No. 3077125.
18. Badri Lal Bairwa S/O Shri Shankar Lal Bairwa, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Village Post Chandli, The. Deoli,
District Tonk, Roll No. 3316150.
19. Ashok Bhisa S/o Shri Babu Lal Bhisa, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Village Bijuda, Post Shishod, Teh. Bicchiwara,
District Dungarpur, Roll No. 3058692.
20. Arjun Jangir S/O Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Adarsh Nagar, Railway Station Road, Didwana,
District Nagaur, Roll No. 3327461.
21. Guddi Fulwariya D/O Shri Ramniwas Fulwariya, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o VPO Didwana, Teh. Lalsot, District
Dausa, Roll No. 3127100.
22. Bhairu Ram S/O Shri Babu Ram, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Village Riyanshyamdas, Post Jogi Magra, Vaya Gotan,
Teh. Merta City, District Nagaur, Roll No. 3109854.
23. Ashok Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Lalaram Yadav, Aged About
38 Years, R/o VPO Bhoopsera, Teh Bansur, District Alwar,
Roll No. 4019538.
24. Manphool S/O Shri Indrapal Singh, Aged About 39 Years,
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM)
(9 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
R/o Village Hanumanpura, Post Derwala, District 24)
Jhunjhunu, Roll No. 3954179.
25. Ramniwas Bhadu S/O Shri Bahnwar Lal, Aged About 38
Years, R/o VPO Koodsoo, Teh Nokha, District Bikaner, Roll
No. 4453380.
26. Vijaypal Singh S/O Shri Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 41
26) Years, R/o VPO Dahra, Teh Nadbai, District Bhartpur,
Roll No. 3433249.
27. Babu Lal Samota S/O Shri Mala Ram Samota, Aged About
37 Years, R/o Village Ranipura, Post Kansarda, Jajod,
District Sikar, Roll No. 3254950.
28. Suman Kumari D/O Shri Hawa Singh, Aged About 36
Years, R/o VPO Devipura, Teh Rajgarh, District Churu, Roll
No. 3492413.
29. Kavita Verma D/O Shri Prbhu Lal Bairwa, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Tirgla Mantoer, District Sawimadhopur, Roll
No. 3217929.
30. Neeta Mishra W/O Shri Anoop Mishra, Aged About 42
Years, R/o 39 B Laxman 2nd Kunhadi, District Kota, Roll
No.3675988.
31. Lavkush Meena S/O Shri Ramsingh Meena, Aged About
21 Years, R/o VPO Bhankari, Teh Mandrayal, District
Karauli, Roll No. 3079015.
32. Rakesh Meena S/O Shri Ranjeet Meena, Aged About 28
Years, R/o VPO Chhareda, Dhani Ringya, Teh Nangal
Rajawatan, Dausa, Roll No. 3631333.
33. Deepak Kumar Prajapati S/O Shri Ramgopal, Aged About
23 Years, R/o Village Sangriya, District Jhalawar, Roll No.
3697576.
34. Bhagawan Singh Rajpoot S/O Shri Natthu Singh, Aged
About 38 Years, R/o Khera Tarf Bahtoo, District Alwar Pin
321605, Roll No. 4015998.
35. Ganga Charan Singh S/O Shri Jagannath Singh, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o Peeraka, District Bharatpur Pin
321205, Roll No. 3417031.
36. Raveena Chaudhary D/O Shri Nawab Singh, Aged About
22 Years, R/o Nagla Khatauti, Teh Nadbai, District
Bharatpur, Roll No. 3453050.
37. Maendra Kumar Meena S/O Shri Harimohan Meena, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Mahaveer Pura, Post Seesola, Teh
Nainwa, District Bundi, Roll No. 4074840.
38. Digamber Singh S/O Shri Hemant Kumar, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Behind IG Office, Padam Village Golbagroad,
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM)
(10 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
Krishna Gagar, District Bharatpur, Roll No. 3417106.
39. Moti Ram S/O Shri Madan Lal Bhakar, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Village Nosarlya, Sarnawara, Teh Makrana,
District Nagaur, Roll No. 3879219.
40. Ramawtar Jatav S/o Shri Kalyan Singh Jatav, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Village' Kanjollya, Kapura Phoolwada, Teh
Hindoun, District Karouli, Roll No. 3466524.
41. Anil Kumar S/o Shri Chandrapal; Aged About 35 Years,
R/o VPO Ladpur Teh Kotkasim, District Alwar, Roll No.
4019774.
42. Manish Sharma S/o Shri Ramsahay Sharma, Aged About
38 Years, R/o Near Dauji Mandir, VPO- Rudawal, Teh -
Rupbaé, District Bharatpur, Rail No. 3046266.
43. Bablu Singh S/D Shri Ratan Singh, Aged About 38 Years,
R/O VPO- Devlen, Teh- Todabhim, District Karauli, Roll
No. 3134277.
44. Deep Chand Gurjar'S/O Shri Kailash Chand Gurjar, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Vill- Sewara, Post- Teori, Teh
Viratnagar, District Jaipur, Roll No. 3474142.
45. Subhash Gurjar S/O Shri Dataram Gurjar, Aged About
24 Years, R/o Village Ratanpura, Post- Karana, Teh
Narinpur, District Atwar, Roll No. 4389753.
46. Gajendra Singh Rao S/O Siiri Mod Singh, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Village- Karoli, Post Santivan, Tesil Aburoad,
Roll No. 3774798.
47. Ajeet Kumar S/O Shri Lal Chand, Aged About 36 Years,
R/C VPO-Majri Kalah, Tah Neemrana, District Alwar, Roll
No. 4022660.
48. Hem Singh S/O Shri Tan Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/O
Village Labrau, Post Banwar Lai, Teh Ramsar, District
Barmer, Roll No. 4044040.
49. Prakashi Meena D/O Shri Ramji Lal Meena, Aged About 30
Years, R/o VPO Santha Balaji Pada, Teh Mahwa, District
Dausa, Roll No. 3520252.
50. Sachin Meena S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Village Reechhauli, Post Milakpur, Teh
Bayana, Pin 321302, Roll No. 3435398.
51. Govind Menaria S/O Shri Deep Chand Menaria, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o 252/25, Paneriyo Ki Madri, Manwa
Khera, District Udaipur, Roll No. 3531679.
52. Ankit Kumar Gautam S/O Shri Kamlesh Kumar Gautam,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o VPO Ladli Ka Bas, Teh Nangal
Rajawatan, District Dausa, Roll No. 3250144.
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM)
(11 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
53. Bhawani Singh S/O Shri Vikram Singh, Aged About 26
Years, R/o VPO Birkali, Teh Nohar, District Hanumangarh,
Roll No. 3154969.
54. Dhaval Choubisa S/O Shri Mohanlal Choubisa, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o VPO Mowai, Teh Aspur, District
Dungarpur, Roll No. 3445931
55. Digvijay Singh Chauhan S/O Shri Hari Singh Chauhan,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o Himmat Singh Ka Gada, Teh
Garhi, District Banswara, Roll No. 3527961.
56. Ranvir Singh S/O Shri Madan Singh, Aged About 43
Years, R/o VPO Barangana, Didwana, District Nagaur, Roll
No. 4189510.
57. Gunjan Vyas S/O Shri Harshvardhan Vyas, Aged About
33 Years, Bhavanpura Kenaal Road, Neelam Nagar Ke
Paas, District Banswara, Roll No. 3529909.
58. Ravi Kumar S/O Shri Bachchu Singh, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Village Chaknawli, Post Nawli, Teh Bayana,
District Bharatpur, Roll No. 3423561.
59 Deepa Meena D/O Shri Battilal Meena, Aged About 29
Years, R/o VPO Ajnoti, Teh Sawaimadhopur, District
Swaimadhopur, Roll No. 3340965.
60. Balveer Nain S/O Shri Rewant Ram, Aged About 22 Years,
R/oNaino Ka Bass, Ridmalsar Purohitan, District Bikaner,
Roll No. 3293944.
61. Chailesh Khatik S/O Shri Raman Lal Khatik, Aged About
25 years R/o M/S Jai Ambey Traders, Ashapura, Partapur,
District Banswara, Roll No. 3527675.
62. Anand Kumar Meena S/O Shri Kailash Chand Meena, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o Village Gudha Meena, Post Lalgarh,
District Jaipur, Roll No. 3008894.
63. Babu Lal Meena S/O Shri Ram Lal Meena, Aged About
22 Years, Village Bhanwarsagar, Post Khidgi, Teh Nivai,
District Tonk, Roll No. 3316266.
64. Mukesh Singh S/O Shri Dara Singh, Aged About 33
Years, R/o VPO Shahjahanpur, Mohalla Babuda, Teh
Neemrana, District Alwar, Roll No. 3824733.
65. Reema Goyal W/O Shri Shiva Kumar, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Bajrang Vihar Colony, Hinaun Road, Mahwa,
District Dausa, Roll No. 3514176.
66. Abhijeet Singh S/O Shri Dalpat Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o VPO Kantaliya, Via Sojat Road, District Pali,
Roll No. 3301787.
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM)
(12 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3074/2022 Sushil Kumar S/o Jagdish Chander, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 14 Ravi Chowk Old Abadi, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan 335001.
----Petitioner Versus
1. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Chairman, Jaipur.
2. Board Of Revenue For Rajasthan, Ajmer Through Chairman
3. Department Of Personnel, Govt Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Jaipur.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Jaipur. 5 Dharmendra Yadav S/o Shri Harphool Yadav aged about 30 years R/o VPO Natharwala, Tehsil Shahpura District Jaipur (Raj.)
6. Rajesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Samay Singh Meena aged about 28 years R/o VPO Dhaulkhera, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa (Raj.)
7. Ashok Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Yadav aged about 26 years R/o VPO Barnagar, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.
8. Abhishek Kumar Sharma s/o Shri Dinesh Chand Sharma aged aobut 28 years R/o Shiv Colony, Mandawar Road, Mahwa Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa Raj. 9 Dungar Singh S/o Shri Chandra Singh aged about 38 years r/o Vill/Post Sewed Bari, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar (Raj.)
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3087/2022 Rahul S/o Vinod Sharma, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Ward No. 14, Near Khetrapal Mandir Ravi Chowk, Purani Abadi, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan 335001
----Petitioner Versus (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (13 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
1. Rajasthan Staff Selection, Through Chairman Jaipur
2. Board Of Revenue For Rajasthan, Ajmer Through Chairman
3. Department Of Personnel, Govt Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Jaipur
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Jaipur
5. Ashok Kumawat S/o Shri Bhakar Ram aged about 29 years R/o Bera Kantaliya VPO Baloonda, Tehsil Jaitaram, District Pali (Raj.)
6. Prem Singh Rathore S/o Shri Madan Singh Rathore, aged about 23 years, R/o Village Charkara Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.)
7. Dinesh Sain S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad Sain, aged about 23 years R/o VPO Toshiana, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur (Raj.)
8. Babulal Rolaniya S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Rolaniya aged about 26 years R/o Dhani Rahgunathwalli, VPO Kant, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipr (Raj.)
9. Banshi Lal Bhadhala S/o Shri Shishupal Singh aged about 29 years r/o Vill/Post Ganeshpura, Post Dookiya Via Palsana, District Sikar (Raj.)
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3568/2022 Yogendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Mathura Lal Meena, Aged About 28 Years, Residence Of House Number C-1, Nav Jeevan Sang Colony, Ninwah Road Bundi, District-Bundi, Rajasthan-323001.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Panchyatiraj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Chairman, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection Board, (Rsmssb), State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur.
4. Chairman, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (Rssb), Jaipur.
----Respondents (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (14 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3606/2022 Rohit Kumar Pareek S/o Shri Anil Kumar Pareek, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Plot No. 104, Kunda Road, Pareek Mohalla, Sirsi, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. The Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection, Board Jaipur, Rajya Krishi Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura Jaipur Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4105/2022 Pooja D/o Shri Daljeet Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 14, Manohari Place Near Hotel Raj Inn, Benad Road, Dadi Ka Phatak, Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. The Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur, Rajya Krishi Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura Jaipur Through Its President.
3. The Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur, Rajya Krishi Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura Jaipur Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4371/2022
1. Surjeet Singh S/o Bhanwar Lal Kaswan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Rampura, Taranagar, District Churu, Rajasthan.
2. Deepak Kumar Choudhary S/o Leela Ram Choudhary, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Ranoth, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
3. Sheetal Kumar S/o Mauhar Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Motiram Ka Nagla, Piprauwa, Dholpur, Rajasthan.
4. Sudama Sharma S/o Ratan Lal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Pehal, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
5. Samay Singh Meena S/o Rishikesh Meena, Aged About 26 (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (15 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Years, R/o Vilalge Kalaguda, Post Amargarh, Tehsil Sapotra, District Karauli, Rajasthan.
6. Yogesh Singh Rajpoot S/o Mahendra Singh Rajpoot, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Bas Karnawat, Post Neemuchana, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
7. Dinesh Kumar S/o Amar Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Deengali, Post Kalgaon, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
8. Vishnu Saini S/o Murari Lal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Dhani Bori Kothi, Vpo Harsora, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
9. Rahul S/o Gordhan Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Daika, Post Pur, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
10. Tanishq Mishra S/o Neeraj Mishra, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Qtr No. 61, 62, Basant Bhawan, Faridabag Colony, Bhagwan Ganj, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
11. Ravindra S/o Lala Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vpo Garhbasai, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary Department Of Personnel And Training Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. The Registrar, Revenue Board, Ajmer.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4555/2022
1. Sachidanand Abhinandan Pahadiya, Son Of Shri Mahesh Prasad Gouttam, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Behind The Gopal Ji Temple, Village Post Banetha, Thesil (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (16 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Uniara, District Tonk Rajasthan.
2. Shanti Lal Son Of Shri Babu Ram, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of 180, Sharahadi Bere, District Jalore, Rajasthan.
3. Satya Prakash Nagar Son Of Shri Meghraj Nagar, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Deeppura, Vpo Baniyani, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota, Rajasthan.
4. Rishabh Mathur Son Of Shri Radha Mohan Mathur, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of 3/42, Nagar Nigam Colony, Amer Road, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Sunil Kumar Son Of Shri Subhash Chandra, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Paharsar, Post Bissau, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
6. Subhash Patidar Son Of Shri Khemji Patidar, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Udaiya, Post Silohi, Tehsil Galiyakot, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
7. Indrajeet Singh Shaktawat Son Of Shri Rajendra Singh Shaktawat, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Ravala Street Ravala Colony, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
8. Sahdev Singh Rathore Son Of Shri Ranveer Singh Rathore, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of E-90, Agarsen Nagar, Churu, District Churu, Rajasthan.
9. Ronak Patidar Son Of Shri Parmeshwar Patidar, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Vpo Madalda, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara, Rajasthan.
10. Raj Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Ramesh Chand Meena, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Village Tigriya, Post Sancholi, Tehsil Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur State Rajasthan
11. Sunil Kumar Son Of Shri Rajveer, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Vpo Sirsali, Post Dudhwa Khara Station Sirsali, Churu, Rajasthan.
12. Satayveer Son Of Shri Mohar Singh, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Hanutpura, Post Lalpur, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
13. Yakin Jani Son Of Shri Kamlesh Jani, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Post Paloda, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara, Rajasthan.
14. Sunil Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Laxmi Lal Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Eklingpura, Po Kaladwas, (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (17 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
15. Ved Prakash Mahawar, Son Of Shri Murari Lal Mahawar, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Hanuman Mandir Ke Pass, Mandawara Road, Patel Nagar, Hindaun City, District Karauli, Rajasthan.
16. Ramkumar Son Of Shri Tulcharam, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Chak 301, Vpo Rojhan, Tehsil Loonkarnsar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
17. Vikas Kumar Son Of Shri Rajender Singh, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Ghotra Patta, Post Kunji, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
18. Rugha Ram Bhadu Son Of Shri Om Prakash Bhadu, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 6, Bhaduo Ka Mohalla, Ramsara, Tehsil Lunkarnsar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
19. Ramdhan Sharma Son Of Shri Bhagwana Ram Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Vpo Ramsisar Bhedwaliya, Tehsil Sardarshahar. District Churu, Rajasthan.
20. Sunil Kumar Son Of Shri Prahalad, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Village Gadiya, Post Gadiya, Tehsil Ramganjmandi, District Kota, Rajasthan.
21. Sri Ram Bhakar Son Of Shri Surjeet Kumar Bhakar, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Chak 37 Mmk, Post Morjand Khari, Tehsil Sadul Shahar, District Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
22. Ramnarayan Meena Son Of Shri Arjun Lal Meena, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Vpo Dungarpur, Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
23. Ram Chander Son Of Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Guvalagarh, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
24. Rajnish Kumar Son Of Shri Ashok Ji, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Iti Road, Near Shani Temple, Santipur, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.
25. Raj Kumar Son Of Shri Sanwar Mal, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Gurjaro Ki Dhani, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
26. Rakesh Gahlot Son Of Shri Gamanda Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Gehlot Rewieding Workshop, Bus (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (18 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Stand Soyala, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
27. Rakesh Kumar Gurjar Son Of Shri Suvalal Gurjar, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Bamanwas, Post Chaturbhuj, Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
28. Ravindra Singh Rathod Son Of Shri Ishwar Singh Rathod, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Vpo Obri, Tehsil Sagwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
29. Yash Jain Son Of Shri Rajesh Kumar Jain, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Vpo Obri, Tehsil Sagwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
30. Rinku Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Meghraj Meena, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Village Meena Baroda, Tehsil Wazirpur, Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
31. Vinod Kumar Son Of Shri Ounkar Mal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Dhani Nitharwalo Ki, Village Pujari Ka Bas, Post Bassi, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
32. Ravi Saini Son Of Shri Chranji Lal Saini, Aged About 27 Years, Naya Bas, Ward No. 22, Bandikui, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
33. Sandeep Kumar Son Of Shri Jai Singh, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Vpo Janana, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
34. Trilok Singh Son Of Shri Bheem Singh, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Vpo Alasan, Tehsil Jalore, District Jalore, Rajasthan.
35. Sohan Lal Bairwa Son Of Shri Cheetar Lal Bairwa, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Manrajpura, Post Pancholash, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
36. Ummed Singh Son Of Shri Shaitan Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Indira Colony, Siwera, Siwera Pindwara, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.
37. Raghvinder Son Of Shri Baleshwar Singh, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Vpo Nadoti, District Karauli, Rajasthan.
38. Shyam Lal Dhakar Son Of Shri Bheru Lal Dhakar, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of 55, Rajputo Ka Mohalla, Village Akodiya, Kunwaliya, Gangrar, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
39. Vijay Singh Khokhar Son Of Shri Hemraj Khokhar, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Dakipura, Post (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (19 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Dhankoli, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
40. Vijay Sain Son Of Shri Vinod Kumar Sain, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of 214 New Colony, Chanwara, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
41. Rajesh Son Of Shri Prahlad Ram, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of V/p. Kuri, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, Jodhour, Rajasthan.
42. Rohit Siyag Son Of Shri Madan Lal, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Opp. Balaji Hospital, Uttarlai Road, Baldev Nagar, Barmer, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
43. Rajkumar Sharma Son Of Shri Hira Lal Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of 31/73 Pratap Nagar, Sector- 3, Sanganer, Jaipur Rajasthan.
44. Rajesh Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Umedi Lal Meena, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Vpo Karanpura, Tehsil Reni Alwar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
45. Yashwant Kumar Tyagi Son Of Shri Ganpat Lal Tyagi, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of 45, Bade Mandir Ke Pass, Vpo Sargaon, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
46. Shri Ram Choudhary Son Of Shri Khiwaram Choudhary, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Vpo Nimod Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
47. Suraj Mohan Meena Son Of Shri Mitha Lal Meena, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Ralawata, Post Garudwasi, Tehsil Kotkhawda, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
48. Vikas Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Shiv Shai Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 99, Prem Nagar, Gurjar Ki Thadi, Ns Road, Sodala, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
49. Rahul Lakhotiya Son Of Shri Rajendra Prasad, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Near Forest Office, Station Gangrar, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
50. Radha Raman Meena Son Of Shri Shripal Meena, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Mahadeva Ka Kuan, Roop Bass, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
51. Ravinder Kumar Godara Son Of Shri Krishan Lal Godara, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Jat Colony, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
52. Ram Singh Bhati Son Of Shri Mohan Singh Bhati, Aged (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (20 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] About 33 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 1, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
53. Sushil Kumar Fogawat Son Of Shri Prabhu Dayal Fogawat, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village Sirsali, Post Rs Dudhwakhara, District Churu, Rajasthan.
54. Vikash Kumar Saharan Son Of Shri Gopi Ram, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village Lohasana Bara, Tehsil Churu, District Churu, Rajasthan.
55. Rajendra Kumar Son Of Shri Ramdayal Regar, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of 92, Regar Mohalla, Gudaliya, Tehsil Tantoti, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
56. Rajani Agarwal Daughter Of Shri Naresh Kumar Agarwal, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of 60 Feet Road, Azad Nagar, Murti Colony, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
57. Vijendra Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Ramphal Meena, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Vpo Bamanwas Bada Thok, Tehsil Thok Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
58. Shahrukh Khan Son Of Shri Zafar Ali, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 14, Near Goriyan Masjid Bissau, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
59. Vikram Son Of Shri Gova Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of V/p Danta, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore, Rajasthan.
60. Ramniwas Prajapat Son Of Shri Khayali Ram, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Bilyoobas Rampura, Billun Bass Rampura, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu, Rajasthan.
61. Rajesh Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Kailash Prasad Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Vpo Phootolao, Via Andhi, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
62. Sagar Singh Panwar Son Of Shri Bhanwar Singh Panwar, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of M.no. 1 Samudayik Bhawan Marg, Village Fatehpur, Tehsil Beawar Suhawa, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
63. Tapendra Dhayal Son Of Shri Kishna Ram Dhayal, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Village Mundi, Post Geloli, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
64. Roshan Jangid Son Of Shri Nandkishor Jangid, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Village Ebra, Post Raithal, (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (21 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] District Bundi, Rajasthan.
65. Rahul Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Om Prakash Meena, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Vpo Bhoopsera, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
66. Ravi Mewada Son Of Shri Brajraj, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Vpo Gothiyana, Tehsil Arain, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
67. Ram Prasad Son Of Shri Meva Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Sikrori, Post Karanpura, Tehsil Bhadra, Disrict Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
68. Ramniwas Chandiwal Son Of Shri Heera Lal Chandiwal, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Village Gudhamin Singh, Post Bhainsawa, Tehsil Kishangarh Renwal, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
69. Vinod Kumar Patidar Son Of Shri Kailash Chand Patidar, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Vpo Saroniya, Tehsil Pirawa, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
70. Shubham Purohit Son Of Shri Dinesh Purohit, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Village Bodiyana, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
71. Ram Niwas Jakhar Son Of Shri Pura Ram Jakhar, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Vpo Riri, Tehsil Dungargarh, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
72. Ramesh Kumar Son Of Shri Sawai Ram, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Utal Sheo Barmer, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
73. Rakesh Sharma Son Of Shri Kurda Ram, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Vpo Kolinda, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
74. Ram Babu Nagar Son Of Shri Ram Gopal Nagar, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Shiv Mandir Chowk, Kumhar Mohalla, Sunel, Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
75. Ratan Singh Son Of Shri Mangu Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Tejpala, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
76. Vikash Kumar Son Of Shri Santosh Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Village Banai, Post Bagari Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
77. Varun Middha Son Of Shri Sandeep, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 17, Near Old Courat Pilibangan, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (22 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
78. Rajat Kumar Son Of Shri Keval Jindal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 17 Pilibangan, Near Ambika Water Filter Plant, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
79. Ghanshyam Saini Son Of Shri Hari Ram Saini, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Baba Ji Ki Kothi, Vpo Malakhera, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
80. Rahul Kumar Son Of Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of 88, Kanhaiya Lal Ki Dukar Ke Pass, Indrapuriya, Keshorai Patan, District Bundi, Rajasthan.
81. Vinod Kumar Son Of Shri Shish Pal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Rampura, Post Kunji, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
82. Sudarshan Sharma Son Of Shri Hari Prasad Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of New Bagra Colony, Didwana Road, Kuchamancity, Nagaur (Raj.)
83. Ramcharan Meena Son Of Shri Khanahaya Lal Meena, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Moti Wali Dhani, Near Railway Station Dausa (Raj.).
84. Roshan Lal Saini Son Of Shri Sohan Lal Saini, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Dhani Kanuwali, Village And Post Mandha, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.)
85. Sunil Kumar Prajapat Son Of Shri Mangej Kumar Prajapat, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur Road Bye Pass Tiraha, Teshil And District Dausa (Raj.)
86. Vikram Lal Meena Son Of Shri Badri Lal Meena, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Kaneti, Post And Tehsil Todabhim, District Karauli (Raj.)
87. Vipin Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Dhani Bainada, Village Hameerpur, Post Samra, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar (Raj.)
88. Vikas Meena Son Of Shri Dana Ram Meena, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Post Kotri Luharwas, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar (Raj.)
89. Shubham Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 04, Khatushyam Ji, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.)
90. Rakesh Meena Son Of Shri Sahab Lal Meena, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Chamawali, Post Utarana, Tehsil Indragarh, District Bundi (Raj.) (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (23 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
91. Subash Chander Dhaka Son Of Shri Nemi Chand Dhaka, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Infront Of Railway Station, Ward No. 33, Near Ravi Public School, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar (Raj.)
92. Vinod Kumar Yadav Son Of Shri Panna Lal Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of 4/237, Swami Vivekanand Nagar, District Kota (Raj.)
93. Shankar Lal Meena Son Of Shri Chhotu Ram Meena, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village God Ka Bas, Ram Nagar, Kotkhawda, Jaipur (Raj.)
94. Tulsiram Meena Son Of Shri Ramkaran Meena, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Village Kuaganv, Post Bichpuri, Tehsil Bamanswas, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
95. Tarun Kumar Singhal Son Of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Near Of Bhagwati Girls School, Lata House Wali Gali, Udai Mode, Gangapurcity, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
96. Vinod Kumar Patidar Son Of Shri Purshottam Patidar, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Karji, Tehsil Bagidora, District Banswara (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4622/2022
1. Vishwanath Singh S/o Kishan Pal Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village And Post Bhanokhar, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar.
2. Shyam Singh S/o Bhawani Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o P.no. 160, Salasar Vatika-Ii, Niwaru Road,near Bharat Gas Godown, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (24 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur.
3. Revenue Board, Jaipur Through Its Secretary, Gokhle Lane, Opp. Collectorate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4900/2022
1. Sunil Kumar Son Of Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of House No. B-13, Behind R.t.o. Office, Chhatrapura Colony, District Kota (Raj.)
2. Vishnu Choudhary Son Of Shri Babu Lal Choudhary, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Khokhro Ki Dhani, Hathoj, Kalwar Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Raja Ram Meena Son Of Shri Jagdish Meena, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Kheda, Post Khedi, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa (Raj.)
4. Surgyan Nitharwal Son Of Shri Godu Ram Nitharwal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Saran Ki Dhani, Village Gajadharpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. Sanjay Singh Sisodiya Son Of Shri Jabber Singh Sisodiya, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Mateshwari Colony, Medta Road, Tehsil Medta City, District Nagaur (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (25 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4904/2022
1. Radhe Shyam Meena Son Of Shri Ramkaran Meena, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Nai Kothi Ki Dhani, Village Badi Ka Bass, Post Beelwa, District Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Shailendra Singh Rao Son Of Shri Vijay Singh Rao, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Nai Kothi Ki Dhani, Village And Post Boyana, Tehsil Mavli, District Udaipur (Raj.)
3. Vijender Kumar Son Of Shri Jagdeesh Kumar, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of 23 Ptd Khokhranwali, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
4. Sanwar Lal Mundotiya Son Of Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Near Shiv Temple Ragran Mohalla Sanwatsar, District Ajmer (Raj.)
5. Vinod Kumar Son Of Shri Kushal Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Chak 32 Kyd, Khajuwala, District Bikaner (Raj.)
6. Umesh Purbia Son Of Shri Suresh Purbia, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Narahingpura, Gogunda, District Udaipur (Raj.)
7. Ramsingh Bairwa Son Of Shri Nand Lal Bairwa, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Bairwa Dhani, Post Golakabas, Tehsil Rajgarh District Alwar (Raj.)
8. Vikash Son Of Shri Mani Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Amarpura, Post Bhuwari, Tehsil Rajgarh District Churu (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4926/2022
1. Shailendra Singh S/o Shri Gopal Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 178, Prithviraj Nagar, Near Vidhasthli School, (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (26 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Maharani Farm, Durgapura, Jaipur.
2. Suresh Vishnoi S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vill. - Khejarli Kallan, Tehsil - Luni, District Jodhpur.
3. Shobha Ram Gurjar S/o Shri Kalu Ram Gurjar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Jethalya, Post Khareda, Tehsil Todaraysingh, District Tonk.
4. Satyendra S/o Shri Ratan Lal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vpo Badet, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu.
5. Ugrasen Meena S/o Shri Shyo Ram Meena, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Newar Dhani - Kankha Ki Vaya - Banskho, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur.
6. Vikas S/o Shri Satyaveer, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vpo -
Maligaon Via - Bagar, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu.
7. Vikas Meena S/o Shri Om Prakash Meena, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Ramjipura, Post Khariyawas, Tehsil Dataramgarh, District Sikar.
8. Vedprakash Sharma S/o Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Baseriya Bhawan, Saipau Road, Bari, District Dholpur.
9. Vishal Lata S/o Shri Pawan Kumar Lata, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Ward No. 13, Pancho Ka Mohalla, Thoi, District Sikar.
10. Ravindra Yadav S/o Shri Om Prakash Yadav, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Shanpo Ki Dhani, Doongarsi Ka Bas, Post Karansar, Tehsil Kishangarh Renwal, District Jaipur.
11. Satish Meena S/o Shri Jaganyaram Meena, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Dantwar Dantia Kathumar, District Alwar.
12. Vijay Kumar Khatik S/o Shri Ram Nivas, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Mahadev Road, Gangrar, District Chittorgarh.
13. Ramniwas Sharma S/o Shri Madan Lal Sharma, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Bagdo Ki Dhani, Village Chanchukya, Post Malhla, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur.
14. Shyam Sundar Khatik S/o Shri Suresh Kumar Khatik, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Out Of Kanore Gate, Bari Sadari, Chittorgarh.
15. Shivdutt Bishnoi S/o Shri Inder Kumar Bishnoi, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Chak 8Kyd, District (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (27 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Bikaner.
16. Raj Kumar Mali S/o Shri Asharam Mali, Aged About 22 Years, R/o 76, Nathukhedi, Dabda, Pratapgarh.
17. Yogesh Kumar S/o Shri Lekh Ram Godara, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vpo Rajiyasar, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.
18. Indar Kumar Saini S/o Shri Sitaram Saini, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Maliyo Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 2, Todaraisingh, Tonk.
19. Virendra Singh S/o Shri Narendra Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo - Bhunwala, Teh. - Dhod, Dist. - Sikar.
20. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Parthvi Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Vpo Dhani Chhoti Post Sidhmukh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.
21. Vishal Choudhary S/o Shri Sagar Mal Khadda, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ward No. 01, Village Lamiyan, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar.
22. Subhash Chander S/o Shri Shankar Lal, Aged About 30 Years, Ward No. 14, Budhwaliya, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.
23. Roshan Chaudhary S/o Shri Jagdish Chaudhary, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Hemawali Dhani, Village Mahapura, Tehsil Sanganer, Ajmer Rod, Bhankrota, District Jaipur.
24. Raja Ram Ujjwal S/o Shri Babu Lal Ujjwal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Raigro Ka Mohalla, Village And Post Kalmanda, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk.
25. Sumit Shrivastav S/o Shri Rajkumar Shrivastav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o F-6, Kiran Vihar, Near Triveni Nagar, Jaipur.
26. Rohit Gurjar S/o Shri Radha Kishan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vill. Banskhera, Post Deory, Jodh, Tehsil Chhipabarod, District Baran.
27. Rajesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Pappu Ram Meena, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vill. - Korda Kalan, Post- Gumanpura, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa.
28. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Balveer, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vpo Bhompura, 16Ag, Hanumangarh.
29. Shree Ram Meel, S/o Shri Dhanna Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Udaipura, Post Mohanpura, Tehsil (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (28 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Dantaramgarh, District Sikar.
30. Ravi Kant Sharma S/o Shri Kamlesh Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Kheratimal Dharmshala, Behind Govt. Hospital, Near Bhavani Medical, District Alwar.
31. Ramesh Kumar Motsara, S/o Shri Moolaram Motsara, Aged About 27 Years, R/o B-92, R.k. Puram Colony, Jaipur Road District Bikaner.
32. Tarun Kumar S/o Shri Ganesha Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Meghwalo Ka Vaas, Sedariya Balotan, Post Paota, Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore.
33. Vishram Kumar Balai S/o Shri Ramkishor Balai, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo - Tilwar, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar.
34. Rajendra Prasad Meena S/o Shri Devkaran Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Surer, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar.
35. Sanwar Mal Dhaka, S/o Shri Baga Ram Dhaka, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Baloopura, Post Khora, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar.
36. Sanjay Kumar Meena S/o Fateh Singh Meena, Aged About 23 Years, R/o D-56, Gayatri Nagar, Dausa.
37. Raj Patidar S/o Kuber Patidar, Aged About 22 Years, R/o M.P. Silohi, Tehsil Galiyakot, Dungarpur.
38. Sharwan Kumar S/o Shri Raju Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Bhojakor, Vaya Peelwa, Tehsil Dechu, District Jodhpur.
39. Saurabh Mishra S/o Shri Bharat Lal Mishra, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Gopal Nagar, Ward No. 25, Baswa Road, Bandikui, District Dausa.
40. Ratan Singh S/o Shri Parbat Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 193, Santo Ka Mohalla, Senai Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
41. Satyanarayan Jangid S/o Shri Shravan Lal Jangid, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Gopipura Colony, Post Ambapura Daulta, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk.
42. Tulsiram Prajapat S/o Shri Sitaram Kumhar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Kumhar Mohalla, Bhadoti Bhadkoli, Sawai Madhopur.
43. Surendra Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Rajendra Singh, (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (29 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Aged About 38 Years, R/o Villagechanwara Via Ponkh, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu.
44. Yogesh Meena S/o Shri Hukam Chand, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village - Neemoda, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota.
45. Ramesh Chandra Patidar S/o Shri Mavji Patidar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Decha, Tehsil Sagwara, District Dungarpur.
46. Vikas Gaur S/o Shri Tara Chand Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 74, Tholiyo Ka Mohalla, Tyoda, District Jaipur.
47. Rajdeep Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Khangar Singh Chouhan, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Gram Thoriya, Post Gajpur, Tel- Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand.
48. Shivraj Kurach S/o Shri Biram Dev Kurach, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Prithviraj Khera, Post Gola, Tehsil Pisangan, Disrict Ajmer.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4927/2022
1. Priyanka Chhipa D/o Mitthan Lal Chhipa, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Main Market Thanagazi, Alwar.
2. Ramswaroop Meena S/o Shravan Lal Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Jaisinghpura, Po - Dera Bamanwas, Thanagazi, District Alwar.
3. Ramesh Yadav S/o Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vpo Kithoor, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (30 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5054/2022
1. Roopchand Meena S/o Jairam Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Sherganj, Post Gudda, Tehsil Indergarh, District Bundi, Rajasthan.
2. Sandeep Singh S/o Buta Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ward No. 03, Vpo Ramsara, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
3. Ravi Sisodia S/o Jagdish Sisodia, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Nadi Kinara Mohalla, Abu Road, Sirohi, Rajasthan.
4. Yash Sharma S/o Chandra Kishor Sharma, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Shanti Bhawan, Chhaju Singh Gate, Alwar, Rajasthan.
5. Ravi Kumar S/o Chet Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Dhorr, Tehsil Baseri, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.
6. Sawai Lal S/o Jagdish Chand, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Maliyo K Vas, Shastri Nagar, Barmer, Rajasthan.
7. Ravi Kant Joshi S/o Banke Lal Joshi, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Keer Colony, In Front Of Chanda Cinema, Tonk, Rajasthan.
8. Vishal Panwar S/o Bhoj Raj Panwar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Behind Gaytri Temple, Ginnai, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
9. Surendra Verma S/o Ram Karan Verma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o H. No. 4/197, Rangbari, District Kota, Rajasthan.
10. Shrawan Kumar S/o Mana Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Bhutel, Post Deora, Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalore, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary Department Of Personnel And Training Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (31 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
3. The Registrar, Revenue Board, Ajmer.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5108/2022
1. Salim Ali Son Of Shri Murad Ali, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Sunari, Tehsil And District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
2. Rakesh Kumar Yadav Son Of Shri Mangal Ram Yadav, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Bichpuri, Post Beejwar Naruka, Tehsil Malakheda, District Alwar (Raj.)
3. Satish Kumar Son Of Shri Hargyan, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Alipur, Post Basni, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar (Raj.)
4. Vishnu Malav Son Of Shri Jagdish Malav, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of 30, Main Road, Hanuvat Khera, Post Chachora, District Baran (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5109/2022
1. Suresh Kumar Regar Son Of Shri Gyarsi Lal, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Khiriya, Tehsil Sarwar, District Ajmer (Raj.)
2. Vijay Patidar Son Of Shri Kachru Patidar, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Padra, District Dungarpur (Raj.) (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (32 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
3. Vijendra Gurjar Son Of Shri Lal Gurjar, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village Bhanchi, Post Deoli, Tehsil And District Tonk (Raj.)
4. Rakesh Kumar Bairwa Son Of Shri Gopiram Bairwa, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Raipura, Post Sikandra, Tehsil Sikarai, District Dausa (Raj.)
5. Gaurav Singh Son Of Shri Hari Pal Singh, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Shahjahanpur Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar (Raj.)
6. Sohan Das Vaishnav Son Of Shri Hukmi Das Vaishnav, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Mavli Dangiyan, Post Bathrda Khurd, Tehsil Vallabhanagar, District Udaipur (Raj.)
7. Yuvraj Singh Rathore Son Of Shri Ishwar Singh Rathore, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Tokwarsa, Tehsil Aspur, District Dungarpur (Raj.)
8. Saurabh Yadav Son Of Shri Siyaram Yadav, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of 72, Ramratan Ji Yadav Wali Gali, Village And Post Manasgaon, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota (Raj.)
9. Sunil Kareer Son Of Shri Gumana Ram, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 05, Koodsoo, District Bikaner (Raj.)
10. Rajpal Bansiwal Son Of Shri Ram Lal Bansiwal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Khairi Kothi, Sailawat Mohalla, Goshala Road, Dausa (Raj.)
11. Vikram Singh Son Of Shri Ridmal Singh, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Khasarvi, Kesoori, Chitalwana, District Jalore (Raj.)
12. Ram Singh Son Of Shri Chandan Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of 63, Shakti Nagar, Triveni Nagar, Gopalpura Byepass, Jaipur (Raj.)
13. Sanjay Kumar Saini Son Of Shri Suraj Mal Saini, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Dhani Jalpani, Village And Post Mundru, Tehsil Sri Madhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)
14. Satish Kumar Tailor Son Of Shri Dayalal Tailor, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Bassi Ada, Tehsil Ganoda, District Banswara (Raj.)
15. Sohan Singh Rajpurohit Son Of Shri Bishan Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Kheteshwar Mandir Ke (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (33 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Pichhe, Kheteshwar Basti, Gangashahar, District Bikaner (Raj.)
16. Rakesh Singh Rajpurohit Son Of Shri Bishan Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Kheteshwar Mandir Ke Pichhe, Kheteshwar Basti, Gangashahar, District Bikaner (Raj.))
17. Vishal Patidar Son Of Shri Gautamlal Patidar, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Near D.p.s. School, Dungarpur (Raj.)
18. Sagar Gorla Son Of Shri Vishnu Ji Gorla, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Behind Of Jain Mandir, Ward No. 18, Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj.)
19. Rekha Ram Son Of Shri Maga Ram, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Gugari Pana, Bagundi, Tilawara, District Barmer (Raj.)
20. Shrawan Singh Son Of Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Baboki Dhaniya, Dhundhariya Osian, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
21. Rajesh Tak Son Of Shri Mahendra Singh Tak, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of 163/27, Gaddimaliyan, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5221/2022 Shishpal Pareek S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Bara Bas, Village And Post Gogasar, Ratangarh, Distt. Churu (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (34 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Department Of Revenue, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. The Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur, Rajya Krishi Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5265/2022
1. Ramesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Sanwar Mal Yadav, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Mehara Wali Kothi, Near Jain Mandir, Govindgarh, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur.
2. Vishram Prajapat S/o Shri Chitarmal Prajapat, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Hingoniya, Post Boorthal, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur.
3. Ram Charan Meena S/o Shri Ratti Ram Meena, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Rajpuriya Ka Nagla, Tehsil Kathumar, Po Sonkhari, District Alwar.
4. Vishal Patidar S/o Shri Ram Prasad, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Patidar Dharamshala Ke Samne, Dag Road, Guradiya Joga, District Jhalawar.
5. Suresh Nagar S/o Shri Laxmi Lal, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Bhopa Ki Doli, Rajsamand District Rajsamand.
6. Ramniwash S/o Shri Pratap Singh, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Changoi, Taranagar, District Churu.
7. Sandeepkumar Chhabrwal S/o Shri Bhagwana Ram Chhabrwal, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Vpo Pewa Dhod, Sikar.
8. Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Govind Ram Jat, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Village Gadari, Post Badhal, Tehsil Ki. Renwal, District Jaipur.
9. Yogesh Patel S/o Shri Valeng Patel, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Vpo Nagawara, Tehsil Bagidora, District Banswara.
10. Vipin Patidar S/o Shri Ramshanker Patidar, Aged About 31 Years, Residnet Of Vpo Wanderved Vaya Bhiluda, Tehsil Sagwara, District Dungarpur
11. Ram Kishore Choudhary S/o Shri Ugma Ram Choudhary, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Village Ujoli Post Kotdi, Tehsil Roopangarh District Ajmer
12. Surat Singh S/o Shri Girwar Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Vpo Barsinghpura, Via.
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (35 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Palsana, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar
13. Yogendra Kumar Nagar, S/o Shri Bhavar Lal Nagar, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Khanpuriya, Post Sakatpur, Tehsil Atru, District Baran.
14. Tara Chand S/o Shri Bagta Ram, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Mahingoni Moodho Ki Dhani, Lilala Baytu Panji, District Barmer.
15. Vikas Kumar Samota S/o Shri Dalveer Singh Samota, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Dhani Samota Wali, Ward No. 7, Reengus, District Sikar
16. Sanju Godara S/o Shri Jasram, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Vpo Bidasar, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu.
17. Siddharth Sharma S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Krishi Upaj Mandi Ke Piche, Narayanpur, Tehsil Thanagazi, Alwar
18. Rahul Sharma S/o Shri Mool Chand Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Chandpuri, Post Garhi Mamor, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar.
19. Shimbhu Dayal Prajapat S/o Shri Kajor Mal Prajapat, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Infront Of Panchayat Samiti, Govindgarh, Chomu, District Jaipur.
20. Vikash Kumar S/o Shri Ramsukh, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Village Khoru, Post Jasrasar, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar.
21. Shrawan Singh S/o Shri Bhopal Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Rajpurohito Ka Vas, Mataji Wada Bali, District Pali.
22. Sunil Kumar Meena S/o Shri Suwa Lal Meena, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Vpo Rundal Via Morija Tehsil Amer District Jaipur.
23. Vinod Singh S/o Shri Gulab Singh, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Kalota, Jhunjhunu.
24. Vishnu Singh S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Village Ban Ka Kheda, Post Rindliya Rampura, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk
25. Vijay Kumar Verma S/o Shri Babulal Verma, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of 31-B, Ganesh Nagar, Shyopur Sanganer, District Jaipur.
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (36 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. (Raj.)
2. The Registrar, Revenue Board, Ajmer.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5299/2022
1. Shailesh Pancholi Son Of Shri Pradeep Kumar Pancholi, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of 561, Vijay Nagar, V.m. Road, Alwar (Raj.)
2. Shanker Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Dayaram Sharma, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of 20 Math Ke Paas, Village And Post Botunda Via Deoli, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Raj.)
3. Surendra Mahawar Son Of Shri Sitaram Mahawar, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of 624/30, Shiv Colony, Kacchi Basti, Bai Ji Ki Kothi, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Sanjay Kumar Banshiwal Son Of Shri Prabhu Lal Banshiwal, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Village Sendiyawash, Post Panwar, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk (Raj.)
5. Teekuram Meghwal Son Of Shri Bhagwanaram, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Mandli Sanwaragaon, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
6. Rinkesh Pandya Son Of Shri Amrit Lal Pandya, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Nichla Fala, Village And Post Anjana, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (37 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5384/2022 Surendra S/o Ramniwas, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Dhuna Ki Dhani, Post Barna, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur.
3. Revenue Board, Jaipur, Through Its Secretary, Gokhle Lane, Opp. Collectorate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Lines, Ajmer Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5466/2022
1. Sampat Mordiya Son Of Shri Ashok Kumar Mordiya, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 26, Dev Gas Godam Ke Paas, Sikar (Raj.)
2. Surendra Nagar Son Of Shri Bhanwar Lal Nagar, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Bishan Kheri, Post Panwar, Tehsil Khanpur, District Jhalawar (Raj.)
3. Tapendera Atal Son Of Shri Hanuman Prasad Atal, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 03, Raigaro Ka Mohalla, Niwai, Tonk (Raj.)
4. Shravan Kumar Son Of Shri Hukama Ram, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Chak 6, Jwm, Village Mohron Wala, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaiselmer (Raj.)
5. Sher Singh Meena Son Of Shri Shiv Charan Meena, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Kishorpur, Post Pawta Gaddi, Tehsil Wazirpur, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
6. Tarun Sharma Son Of Shri Vidyadhar Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 13, Anand Nagar, Mungaska, Delhi Road, Near Amarnath Petrol Pump, District Alwar (Raj.)
7. Sohan Singh Rao Son Of Shri Chatar Singh Rao, Aged (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (38 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] About 27 Years, Resident Of 9, Rao Ka Sayra, Post Sayara, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur (Raj.)
8. Rohit Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Gulab Chand Meena, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Jhapayta, Post Dehikheda, Tehsil Indragarh, District Bundi (Raj.)
9. Shivraj Meena Son Of Shri Hanuman Prasad Meena, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Siloni, Post Needharada, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
10. Vikas Kumar Son Of Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of 483, Mohalla Kunchiyan, Ward No. 23, Bhadra, Hanumangarh (Raj.)
11. Satveer Singh Son Of Shri Samudra Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Village Gogatiya, Badhawatan, Post Anandhinghpura, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu (Raj.)
12. Shree Ram Son Of Shri Nathu Ram, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Dhambhuo Ki Dhani, Nokhra Bhatiya, Bap, Jodhpur (Raj.)
13. Indrajeet Son Of Shri Teja Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Bharat Ka Gaon, Tehsil Bhaniyana, District Jaiselmer (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5469/2022
1. Rahul Kumar Bairwa Son Of Shri Ram Lal Biarwa, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of 344, Tirupati Balaji Nagar, Near Panki Ki Tanki, Airport, Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Rohit Devatwal Son Of Shri Sita Ram Devatwal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 77, Hanuman Nagar, Sirsi Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Ram Lakhan Gurjar Son Of Shri Bodan Lal Gurjar, Aged (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (39 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] About 22 Years, Resident Of Village Kootooki, Post Shyaluta, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)
4. Rakesh Dhobi Son Of Shri Moti Lal Dhobi, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Kota Mamchari, District Karauli (Raj.)
5. Suresh Choudhary Son Of Shri Prabhu Lal, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Kunwaliya, Sub Division Gangrar, District Chittorgarh (Raj.)
6. Rakesh Kumar Joshi Son Of Shri Satya Narayan Joshi, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Badwai, Tehsil Dungla, District Chittorgarh (Raj.)
7. Sanjay Kudal Son Of Shri Shankar Lal Kudal, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Pratibha Nagar, Ward No. 56, Churu (Raj.)
8. Rajnish Kumar Son Of Shri Banwari Lal, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Raghunathpura Bus Stand, Ward No. 04, Fatehpur, District Sikar (Raj.)
9. Raghvendra Singh Son Of Shri Shivraj Singh, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of G-34-35, Prem Nagar-2Nd, Gurjar Ki Thadi, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
10. Rajendra Kumar Son Of Shri Chimana Ram, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Village Ribiya, Post Khandwa, Churu (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5801/2022
1. Tinku Verma S/o Ram Prasad Verma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Rager Mohalla, Ramdev Mandir Ke Pass, Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
2. Nisha Sharma D/o Krishan Kumar Sharma, Aged About (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (40 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] 43 Years, R/o 27-A, Hill View Garden, Bhiwadi, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
3. Shubham Shringi S/o Bhagwati Prasad Shringi, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Repla, Post Bakani, Tehsil Bakani, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
4. Ravindra Singh Rathore S/o Ajit Singh Rathore, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 55-A, Marg No. 17, Kailash Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary Department Of Personnel And Training Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. The Registrar, Revenue Board, Ajmer.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5845/2022
1. Tarun Jain Son Of Shri Bhagchand Jain, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Plot No 40 Shri Ram Nagar B Khirni Phatak Road Jhotwara Jaipur District Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Ramdayal Son Of Shri Jagdish Kumar, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Kudsu, Post Kudsu, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.)
3. Rakesh Gurjar Son Of Shri Rohitashav Gurjar, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village Nangal Pandit Pura, Post Nangal Pandit Pura,, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Surendra Singh Son Of Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Dhana Mathura Ward 12 Post Rampura, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
5. Shivram Meena Son Of Shri Bhagwan Lal Meena, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village Domai, Post Domai, (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (41 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Tehsil Sarmathura, District Dholpur (Raj.)
6. Tayyab Ali Son Of Shri Mohammad Rafik, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of 44 Shiv Nagar Mandiya Road Pali District Pali (Raj.)
7. Sumit Bishnoi Son Of Shri Rajender Prasad Bishnoi, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Ghamandia, Post Ghamandia, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
8. Vinod Kumar Son Of Shri Gopal Ram, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Ward No 07 Bahlol Nagar 43 Ssw Tehsil Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
9. Rajsingh Meena Son Of Shri Laddoo Lal Meena, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Nai Kothi Mohalla Kalyanpura, Bagri, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.)
10. Rajesh Ruyal Son Of Shri Harish Chandra, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village Kulhario Ki Dhani, Post Kulhario Ki Dhani, Bissau District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
11. Vikash Deep Son Of Shri Kamalesh Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village New Aabadi Kishanpura, Post New Aabadi Kishanpura, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
12. Rakesh Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Banshi Dhar Meena, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Ganwari, Post Ganwari, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.)
13. Shri Pal Gurjar Son Of Shri Shiv Raj Gurjar, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Harbhawata, Post Kareda Buzurg, Tehsil Newai, District Tonk (Raj.)
14. Vikash Kumar Son Of Shri Khamichamal, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Nat Colony Tehsil Road Raniwara, Kalan Nat Colony Raniwara Kalan District Jalore (Raj.)
15. Ramraj Gurjar Son Of Shri Madan Gurjar, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Gudla Nadi, Post Rathod Neemod, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
16. Vinod Gurjar Son Of Shri Rambhajan Gurjar, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village Barudhan, Post Kunder, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk (Raj.)
17. Ravi Tailor Son Of Shri Rajesh Tailor, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of 162, Patrakar Colony, Near Water Head Tank, Dungarpur, District Dungarpur (Raj.)
18. Rajkumar Mehta Son Of Shri Nathu Lal Mehta, Aged (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (42 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] About 22 Years, Resident Of Village Telni, Post Bhehta, Tehsil Shahabad, District Baran (Raj.)
19. Yad Ram Jat Son Of Shri Gopal Lal Jat, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Jajunda Ki Haveli, Keriya, Tonk (Raj.)
20. Rakesh Kumar Gurjar Son Of Shri Hari Prasad Gurjar, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Thari, Tonk (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6459/2022
1. Ramendar Singh Gurjar Son Of Shri Ramkishore Gurjar, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Tulsipura, Tehsil And District Karauli (Raj.)
2. Sunil Kumar Son Of Shri Dayaram, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Ghanamagra, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
3. Suraj Mal Sharma Son Of Shri Ramkishore Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Near Police Check Post, Village And Post Daulatpura, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Vimal Meena Son Of Shri Moji Ram Meena, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village Bagina, Post Bagina, Tehsil Chauth Ka Barwara, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
5. Rakesh Kumar Son Of Shri Ram Kumar, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 16, Behind Civil Court Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
6. Sitaram Sharma Son Of Shri Maniram Sharma, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Beeghran, Post Dhani Kumharan, Tehsil Tara Nagar, District Churu (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (43 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6843/2022
1. Suresh Kumar S/o Thakra Ram Vishnoi, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Vpo Khara, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore, Rajasthan (Roll No. 4518870)
2. Vela Ram S/o Bhava Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Palari Solankiyan, Post Dhamana, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore, Rajasthan (Roll No. 4469947)
3. Suresh Bishnoi S/o Hema Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Shiv Sthan, Village Nimbali Patelan, Tehsil Rohat, District Pali, Rajasthan (Roll No. 4472163)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Training Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Registrar, Revenue Board, Ajmer.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6902/2022
1. Ramesh Kumar Son Of Shri Ram Kumar, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Village Nehra Wali Dhani, Post Thalarka, Tehsil Rawatsar And District Hanumangarh (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (44 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] (Raj.)
2. Suresh Lalariya Son Of Shri Shankar Ram, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Sargasani, Post Kalru Merta City, District Nagaur(Raj.)
3. Rajendra Grasiya Son Of Shri Laxmi Chand Grasiya, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Near Tejaji Ka Chouk, Village And Dabi, District Bundi (Raj.)
4. Vikram Fageriya Son Of Shri Ram Niwas Fageriya, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village Charanwasi, Post Bhadasar Dikhnada, Tehsil Sardashahar, District Churu (Raj.)
5. Vijender Kumar Son Of Shri Dhanpat Ram Meena, Fageriya, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Ward No 6, Vpo Khatehpura, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
6. Vikram Ram Son Of Shri Gova Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Surawa, Post Surawa, District Jalore (Raj.)
7. Tapan Dashora, Son Of Shri Anil Kumar Dashora, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Near Goswami Math, Jat Mohalla, Kuraj, District Rajsamand (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7030/2022 Yashwant Singh Dheerawat Son Of Shri Jagjeet Singh Dheerawat, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Rendayal Turk, Rendayal Gurjar, Tehsil Wazipur , District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (45 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7161/2022 Satyabhan Singh S/o Shri Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Village- Tatwai, Post Chainpur, Tehsil- Masalpur, District- Karauli (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chairman, Board Of Revenue Department, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
2. Chairman, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur. State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premise, Shreeji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7247/2022
1. Yogesh Kumar Son Of Shri Bholu Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Hanipur, Post Reta, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar (Raj.)
2. Raju Singh Son Of Shri Papu Singh, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Bighran, Post Dhani Kumaharan, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu (Raj.)
3. Tau Ram Son Of Shri Kabira Ram, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Sawai Singh Ki Basti Balai, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (46 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7775/2022 Shakti Singh Son Of Shri Kushal Singh, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 7,main Bajar, Vpo Mirzewala, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8273/2022
1. Vijay Singh Bairwa Son Of Shri Hari Shankar Bairwa, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Katar, Post Khandwala, Tehsil Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
2. Ishwar Lal Meghwal Son Of Shri Hukmi Chand Meghwal, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village Chandra Khairi, Post Sangriya, Tehsil Bari Sadri, District Chittorgarh (Raj.)
3. Sanjay Kumar Son Of Shri Ghasiram, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Kod, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur (Raj.)
4. Subhash Bajya Son Of Shri Sardar Mal Bajya, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Dhani Piliya, Village And Post Khejroli, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.)
5. Rohit Solanki Son Of Shri Ganesh Lal Khatik, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of 83-84, Riddi Siddhi Nagar, M.p. Setu Marg, Chittorgarh (Raj.)
6. Thana Ram Parihar Son Of Shri Nawala Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (47 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8278/2022
1. Rajendra Patel Son Of Shri Jagdish Patel, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Vpo Chawand, Teshil Sarda, District Udaipur (Raj.)
2. Raj Kumar Son Of Shri Lal Chand Saharan, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Village Kailash, Post Nethwa, Teshil Taranagar, District Churu (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8433/2022
1. Surendra Singh Son Of Shri Gokul Singh, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village Alafsar, Post Hirna, Tehsil Fatehapur, District Sikar (Raj.)
2. Sandeep Kumar Son Of Shri Hoshiyar Singh, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Village Badhki, Post Ladria, Tehsil And District Churu (Raj.)
3. Vikram Kumar Chandolia Son Of Shri Basant Kumar Chandolia, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Vpo Baruori, Tehsil Shahpura District Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Rahul Kumar Son Of Shri Shree Ram Choudhary, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Vpo Doongri Kalan, Via (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (48 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Renwal, District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8721/2022 Rakesh Kumar Son Of Shri Puran Mal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Bhishtiyon Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 32, New City Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9154/2022
1. Vikas Meena S/o Shri B.L. Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o B-8, Shri Ram Colony, Kati Ghati, Rajgarh Road, Alwar.
2. Rahul Kumar Meena S/o Shri Banshidhar Meena, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Ayodhya Nagar, Ward No. 40, Dausa, Rajasthan.
3. Dharam Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Ram Singh Gurjar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Dhani Jatala, Vill.- Kotri Rampura, Post - Tehla, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
4. Dharmendra Singh Raghav S/o Shri Satayawir Singh, (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (49 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Khohar, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
5. Rahul S/o Shri Rajpal Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Plot No. 18, Ganesh Vihar 3, New Loha Mandi Road, Vkia, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Rajesh Patel, S/o Shri Nathu Lal Patel, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Bagthala, Post Shyampura, Tehsil Semari, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
7. Ravi Kumar Soni S/o Shri Shyam Sundar Soni, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Datwas, Tehsil Newai, District Tonk, Rajasthan.
8. Ravi Sankhala S/o Shri Kailash Sankhala, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Infront Of Old Uco Bank, Kishangarh Renwal, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
9. Roshan Trivedi, S/o Shri Ramshankar Trivedi, Aged About 22 Years, R/o B.s.n.l. Tower Paloda, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara, Rajasthan.
10. Sarjeet Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Swai Chhani , Po Chhani Bari, Tehsil Bhadra, District Haumangarh, Rajasthan.
11. Sachin Kumar Jeph, S/o Shri Maniram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Ward No. 15, Gurjar Colony, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
12. Sanjay Lohar, S/o Shri Mangi Lal Lohar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Near Bus Stand, Jhadol, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
13. Sharwan Kumar Kuri S/o Shri Dinesh Kumar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vpo Dhyawa, Tehsil Ladnun, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
14. Shakti Singh S/o Shri Roop Singh Rajpoot, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Mundoti, Post Akodiya, Arain, District Ajmer.
15. Shubhash Yadav S/o Shri Mool Chand Yadav, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Kairoth, Post Pachlangi, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
16. Sugreev Kumar S/o Shri Tarachand, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Jharkhand, Post Kharkhada, Ramolothan, Tehsil Atru, District Baran, Rajasthan.
17. Sunil Bharti S/o Shri Radhe Shyam, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 200 Foot Road, Ambedkar Chatrawas Ke Samne, (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (50 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Alwar, Rajasthan.
18. Tulsi Ram Meena S/o Shiv Ram Meena, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vill- Jaisinghpura, Post - Karanpura, Tehsil Reni, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
19. Umesh Kumar S/o Shri Radhey Shyam, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Nayabas, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
20. Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ganesh Narayan Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Jatawali, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
21. Yogendra Singh S/o Shri Naval Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Tilanesh, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
22. Vishwas Dadhich, S/o Shri Vasudev Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o D 709 A Jagdamba Nagar, Behind Heerapura Power House, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
23. Sunil Kumar Patidar, S/o Shri Prakash Chandra, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Chundawara, Post- Sakarsi, Tehsil Simalwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
24. Sandeep Singh S/o Shri Girwar Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Plot No-174, A Vrandavan Colony, Khirni Phatak Road, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
25. Ghanshyam S/o Shri Kanwar Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Vpo Raisarana, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
26. Ratan Lal S/o Shri Mahaveer Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Vpo Meghana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9860/2022
1. Ritesh Kumar Son Of Shri Janki Lal, Aged About 34 Years, (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:12 PM) (51 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Resident Of 70/104, Sector-7, Pratap Nagar, Shyopur, Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Deepak Kumar Patidar Son Of Shri Shyam Lal Patidar, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Mayapuri Mohalla, Village And Post Donda, Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10456/2022 Sunil Kumar Bishnoi Son Of Shri Kishna Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Surnda, G.s.s. Chandr Nagar, Shri Jammeshwar Nagar, Lohawat, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11271/2022
1. Ravi Shankar S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Dadrewa, Tehsil Rajagarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.
2. Rugha Ram S/o Shri Punja Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Didhu, Tehsil Pokhran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (52 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11278/2022
1. Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Maru Ram Bhuria, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Khidarsar (Pura Ki Dhani), Post Derwala, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Rahul S/o Mani Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ward No-
7, Po Durjana, Tehsil - Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
3. Saurabh Suman S/o Shri Pyare Lal Suman, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 2-A-1, Housing Board Colony, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
4. Rahul Kumar Verma S/o Shri Bapu Lal Verma, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Anwali Khurd, Tehsil Pachpahar, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11286/2022 Sumer Singh Meena Son Of Shri Amar Singh Meena, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Lotwara, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (53 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11296/2022 Sohan Lal Teli S/o Shri Radheshyam, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Simarda, Post Karunda, Tehsil Chotisadri, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11501/2022 Shiv Kumar Potter S/o Shri Babulal Potter, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vpo Ananta, Tehsil Atru, District Baran, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11936/2022
1. Ravindra Singh S/o Narayan Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Behind Rajput Vishram Grah, Bhawanipura, Pokaran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
2. Sharvan Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Das, Aged About 24 (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (54 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Years, R/o Vpo Untwalia, Tehsil Nagaur, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12563/2022
1. Deepak Kumar Son Of Shri Rajpal, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Doomroli, Neenrana, District Alwar (Raj.)
2. Vishna Ram Son Of Shri Bhaipa Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of 42, Basni Nikuba, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
3. Suresh Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Mangi Lal, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Vpo Dakam Kotra, District Udaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13007/2022
1. Vishnu S/o Surja Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Guda Vishnoiyan, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Ramlal S/o Hanuman Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Siyako Ki Dhani, Village Kanawas, Kapana, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. Rakesh S/o Babulal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Nadi Wali (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (55 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Dhaniya, Fitkasani, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary Department Of Personnel And Training Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. The Registrar, Revenue Board, Ajmer.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13447/2022
1. Tejpal Bangar Son Of Shri Randheer Singh Bangar, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Dhani Bangaro Ki, Village Trilokpura, Nayan, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Siyaram Gurjar Son Of Shri Dhan Pal Gurjar, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Village Maleda, Post Renthoda, Tehsil Nainwa, District Bundi (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14109/2022
1. Yogendra Singh Jhala S/o Shri Dayal Singh Jhala, Aged About 26 Years, R/o H.no. 25, Jhalo Ka Guda, District (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (56 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Udaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Surendra Singh Jhala S/o Shri Bhan Singh Jhala, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Jhanlo Ka Guda, Kailashpuri, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Secretary, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14620/2022
1. Vikas Sharma S/o Kailash Chand Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Dayarampura, Post Jeetawala, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Rajesh Sharma S/o Satya Narain, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Jagmalpura, Post Chawandiya, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary Department Of Personnel And Training Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Registrar, Revenue Board, Ajmer.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16329/2022
1. Vinod Kumar Kumawat Son Of Shri Bhagirath Mal (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (57 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Kumawat, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Thehat, Post Roopgarh, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.)
2. Suresh Kumar Son Of Shri Hajari Ram, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Salariya, Tehsil Rani, District Pali (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16382/2022
1. Ullash Sharma Son Of Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Ward No 13, Thoi, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)
2. Vikalp Shrimali Son Of Shri Hemendra Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Jai Hind Nagar, Gali No. 6, District Dungarpur (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17647/2022
1. Vishanu Prasad Son Of Shri Laxmi Narayan, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Baniyani, Tehsil (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (58 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Ladpura, District Kota (Raj.)
2. Raju Nayak Son Of Shri Rupa Nayak, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Manpura, Post Bhulon,tehsil Chhabara, District Baran (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18592/2022
1. Ghanshyam Yadav Son Of Shri Mohar Singh Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Vpo Bamanwas, Tehsil Bansur District Alwar (Raj.)
2. Upendra Singh Son Of Shri Giriraj Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Village Balwandka, Post Sahdoli, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18801/2022
1. Samartha Ram Son Of Shri Sawal Ram, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Vpo Bithujatehcil, Tehsil Pachpdra, District Barmer (Raj.)
2. Uday Ram Son Of Shri Krishan Lal, Aged About 23 Years, (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (59 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Resident Of Ward No. 5,maler Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
3. Deepak Kumar Son Of Shri Ramji Lal Jyotishi, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Gurha, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar (Raj.)
4. Vikram Singh Bhati Son Of Shri Dungar Singh Bhati, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Gogadiyawala, District Bikaner (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19369/2022 Rohit Khatri Son Of Shri Bansidhar Khatri, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Gopal Colony, Ward No. 17, Hindaun, District Karauli (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principle Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Training, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Through Its Registrar.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (60 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19477/2022
1. Shyodan Prajapat Son Of Shri Ram Niwas Prajapat, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Dragpalpura, Post Kareda Khurd, Tehsil Chaklsu, District Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Ritesh Kumar Saini Son Of Shri Jagdish Prasad Saini, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Samode Road, Nimadi, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12943/2022 Ramesh Dan S/o Shri Neemb Dan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 4 Bm Sardarpura Pugal, District- Bikaner.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Training Government, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Registrar, Revenue Board, Ajmer.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur Rajasthan.
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (61 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19763/2022
1. Yadav Maheshkumar Sitaram S/o Shri Sitaram Yadav, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Keshwa Pever Block Firm, Tehsil Kishangarh Renewal, District Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Virendra S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ward No. 04, Vpo Kuchor, Athuni, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. Ramswarup Yadav S/o Shri Raghunath Yadav, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Kerli Kothi, Ranoli, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board Through Secretary, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 909/2023 Sandeep Kumar S/o Rohtas, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Banihari, Post Thanwas, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendragarh, Haryana.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Training Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Registrar, Revenue Board, Ajmer.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (62 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
5. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1181/2023
1. Rahul Choudhary S/o Sarjeet Singh Choudhary, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Shekhpur, Post Sangtera, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Rajesh Kumar S/o Sugana Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Indra Colony, Gusayo Ki Samadhi Ke Pass, Ward No. 29, New Ward No. 38, Rajgarh, District Churu, Rajasthan
3. Sachin Dhabhai S/o Narpat Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vidhayak Nagar, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan.
4. Sanjay Kumar S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Mohalriya, Post Kolila, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary Department Of Personnel And Training Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. The Registrar, Revenue Board, Ajmer.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1344/2023 Ramesh Meena Son Of Shri Ramlal Meena, Aged About 28 (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (63 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Years, Resident Of Village Balagarh, Post Guari, Tehsil Dooni District Tonk (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Revenue Board Ajmer Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah with Mr. Akshit Gupta Mr. Shubhan Khunteta for Mr. Deepak Chauhan Mr. Shimbhu Dayal Poswal Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya with Mr. Harsh Dadhich Mr. Govind Gupta Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with Mr. Aamir Khan Ms. Komal Kumari Giri Mr. Bajrang Sepat Mr. Takhat Singh Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma with Mr. Abhinav Srivastava Mr. Tanveer Ahamad with Mr. Manish Parihar Mr. J.R. Chaudhary Mr. Y.S. Jadoun Mr. Ashok Bansal Mr. Chandi Charan Ratnu For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Shovit Jhajharia Mr. Nalin G. Narain, AGC Mr. Himanshu Jain Mr. Ajay Chaudhary Mr. Bharat Saini Mr. Arpit Jain Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman Mr. Sandeep Taneja Mr. Kartikeya Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (64 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:- January 10th ,2023 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:- January 25th ,2023 REPORTABLE:
1. In this bunch of writ petitions, challenge has been made to the method of normalization adopted by the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Staff Selection Board, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") in order to equalize the difficulty level of different question papers in multi-sessioned examination conducted for the selection on the post of Patwari in pursuance to the Patwari Direct Recruitment Examination-2021, initiated vide advertisement No.3/2019 dated 17.1.2020 under the Rajasthan Revenue (Land Records, Settlement and Colonization) Subordinate Service Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2019").
2. Factual matrix of the matter is that it is not in dispute that due to huge number of candidates in the examination of Patwari, same was conducted in four shifts i.e. on 23.10.2021 (morning-
evening) and on 24.10.2021 (morning-evening). The syllabus and subjects in all four shifts were similar but question paper of each shift was different. Initially, 4421 vacancies were advertised vide notification dated 17.01.2020 and thereafter few more were added and total as as many as 5610 vacancies for Patwari, to be recruited in Revenue, Colonization and Settlement departments, were advertised and as per data available on record, total 15,62,995 candidates, out of which 5,02,307 female candidates participated in this direct recruitment examination. Since on 24.10.2021, there was a religious festival of 'Karva Chouth' therefore, maximum number of female candidates opted and (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (65 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] accommodated to appear in examination in two shifts on 23.10.2021. Since the examination was got performed in four shifts with different question papers of multiple type objective questions, the Board decided to apply the method of normalization to prepare the result and order dated 13.12.2021 to this effect was published. A Committee of experts came to be constituted and as per the opinion of the Expert Committee, a well known and mostly prior used formula of V. Natarajan and K. Gunasekaran has been applied to normalize the marks and after scaling the marks according to the formula as suggested by the Expert Committee, the provisional result has been prepared and published on 25.01.2022.
3. After declaration of result on 25.01.2022, candidates who appeared in the examination in fourth shift, which was conducted in evening of 24.10.2021, have challenged the result dated 25.01.2022 as well as ex-post facto, application of the process of normalization to prepare the result. This Court has been informed that all writ petitioners, in the present bunch of writ petitions are only among those candidates who appeared in the recruitment process of Patwari Examination-2021 in the last and fourth shift of evening on 24.10.2021.
4. Challenge has been made on behalf of petitioners mainly on the following points:-
I) In the result dated 25.01.2022, declared after applying the process of normalization, variance about 21% has occurred between the ratio of selected candidates, appeared in first batch in morning shift on 23.10.2021 then the candidates appeared in fourth batch in evening shift on 24.10.2021, therefore, the normalization has led to hostile discrimination with candidates appeared in batch No.4;
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (66 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] II) Normalization is not provided in the rules of 2019 and the same was not notified by the Board in the initial advertisement dated 17.01.2020, therefore application of the method of normalization, after conducting the examination, is arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted;
III) Final result should have been prepared on the basis of actual and raw marks obtained by the candidates in written examination, as per Rule 28 of Rule 2019, without scaling the marks; or IV) In the present examination, undisputedly subject and syllabus is similar for all candidates and there is no question of arising any subject variability, therefore application of the formula of scaling for normalization is illegal and at the most, the formula for moderation, to remove Hawk Dove Effect or examiner variability could have been applied that too after obtaining opinion/report of the Expert Committee; V) Wrong method of normalization has been adopted, which has resulted in yielding abnormal marks and as such final result be quashed.
5. To buttress the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for petitioners have relied upon following judgments:-
(1) State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. Vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi & ors. [AIR 2022 SC 973] (2) Jairuddin Shaik Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. [2021 (3) ALD 129], (3) Sanjay Singh & ors. vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Ors. [(2007)3 SCC 720].
6. To counter the challenge of result on the aforestated points, respondent-Board and candidates who find place in the final select list or in the waiting list, have raised following arguments:-
"I) Method of normalization was applied according to the report of the Expert Committee after statistical (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (67 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] analysis with all bona fides, in order to equalize the difficulty level of examination conducted in fourth shifts with multiple type different question papers, and to bring the level playing field at part for all candidates.
II) Distribution of candidates in four shifts was warranted because of huge number of candidate and distribution was done alphabetically as per the name of candidates but incidently because of the festival of Karva Chouth on 24.10.2021, maximum number of female candidates were required to be accommodated in two shifts on 23.10.2021 and there was no irregularity/illegality in such methodical distribution of candidates.
III) Challenge to the application of the method of normalization after declaration of result, only on account of variance of the ratio of successful candidates between the candidates appeared in first shift (in morning on 23.10.2021) and candidates appeared in fourth shift (in evening on 24.10.2021), is contrary to law and further since in both shifts of morning and evening on 23.10.2021, maximum number of female candidates appeared and for the Women category 30% reservation is provided as such the marginal variance in the final result is obvious and that too for such reason the method of normalization cannot be challenged.
IV) The formula used by the Board for normalization was suggested by the Expert Committee, after statistical analysis without any ulterior motive. V) As per Rule 22 of Rule 2019, Schedule II Note 3, it is provided that scheme & syllabus of the papers shall be prescribed by the Board and there is no embargo for the Board to apply the process of normalization, even if it is not specifically notified in the advertisment.
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (68 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] VI) There is no mala fide or lack of bona fide on the part of Board nor any such allegations of mala fide have been attributed against the Board for application of the method of normalization. VII) The process of recruitment has substantially completed and the appointment to the selected candidates from the main list have been accorded and only few left out vacancies are required to be filled from the waiting list, therefore at this stage, the interference in the final result by way of judicial review is not supposed to."
Respondents have relied upon following judgments:-
(1) Sunil Kumar & Ors. Vs. The Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors.[2016 (2) SCC 495], (2) State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. Vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi & ors. [AIR 2022 SC 973],(3) Jai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan [(2011)2 WLC 46], (4) Gaurav Sharma & Anr Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.
SBCWP No.4088/2022 (5) Anil Kumawat and Ors. Vs. Naveen Agarwal and & Ors. [2012 (3) ILR (Raj)164].
7. It is worthy to note here that few of candidates, who have been selected and find place in waiting list but their appointment is withheld due to interim stay order passed during pendency of writ petitions, moved applications seeking impleadment and this Court vide a common order dated 13.12.2022, passed in CWP No.2679/2022 and other connected writ petitions have been allowed to join such selected candidates as party respondents, so if any such application seeking impleadment of selected candidates is pending, same be treated as disposed off in terms of common order dated 13.12.2022 and they have been given opportunity of hearing, though no reply of writ petitions have been filed by them. It may also be noted that apart from pleadings, (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (69 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] other additional affidavits, documents, reports of Expert Committee, have been placed on record by the respective parties, the same have been taken into consideration.
8. Having heard counsel for all the concerned parties and on the basis of their respective contentions as well as pleadings, additional affidavits and applications and other material available on record, following points fall for consideration required to be adjudicated by this Court:-
I) Whether ex post facto application of the normalization process by the respondent-Board after conducting the examination is arbitrary and dehors to the Rules of 2019 and impermissible in law?
II) Whether the final result of Patwari Direct Recruitment Examination-2021, prepared after applying the normalization process is liable to be quashed by writ Court, within scope of the judicial review?
Point No.I:-
At the outset, it is not in dispute that Patwari Direct Recruitment Examination-2021 has been conducted in four shifts with different question papers of objective type multiple choice answer pattern. Obviously when the examination is multi-
sessioned and question paper in each session of examination is different, application of the principle of normalization, scaling or moderation is usual practice, followed by the authorities as there is every possibility of variation in standard or difficultly level of examination question papers set by different examiners for various session. Counsel for petitioner too do not dispute such proposition of law and admits that whenever, such multi-sessioned examination is conducted, different agencies like National Testing Agency (NTA), Airport Authority of India (AAI), Staff Selection Commission (SSC), Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (70 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (RSSB) etc. are following normalization procedure/technique. Thus, it is undisputed and settled proposition of law that whenever a large number of candidates participate in the written examination and the written examination is conducted in different sittings or batches with different question papers, the recruitment agency may apply process of normalization in order to test the merit of all candidates on the same footing, unless and until any other process of selection is not advertised or specifically provided in the rules or application of the process of normalization is not restricted. It is true that in the present examination of Patwari, in the advertisement it was not notified that the process of normalization would be followed for preparing the final result and the same was advertised on 13.12.2021, post to conduct the examination in four shifts on 23.10.2021 and 24.10.2021 (morning and evening);
whether ex-post facto application of process of normalization is illegal or whether the Rule of 2019 puts any embargo on the Board to apply the process of normalization and whether the adoption of the normalization gives any right to the petitioners to challenge the same and because of normalization, the candidates appeared in fourth shift suffered hostile discrimination. In order to analyze and adjudicate all such issues, let the scheme of examination and the process of selection as stipulated in the Rules of 2019 be considered, coupled with judicial precedent as settled by Apex Court in plethora of judgments.
9. Patwari Direct Recruitment Examination-2021 has been conducted under the Rajasthan Revenue (Land Records, (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (71 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Settlement and Colonization) Subordinate Service Rules, 2019 as promulgated vide notification dated 21.11.2019. Advertisement of vacancies was issued on 17.01.2020. Part IV of such Rules deals procedure for direct recruitment and Rule 22 envisage that the posts specified in schedule-I to be filled in by direct recruitment shall be filled in by written competitive examination in accordance with the scheme and syllabus, as specified in Schedule -II through the selection Board. In Schedule-I, post of Patwari is indicated and method of recruitment is 100% by way of direct recruitment.
Schedule-II reads as under:-
"1. Schedule of Examination: The examination shall include one paper of 3 hours during covering the following subjects:-
Subject Approx
Weightage
General Science, History, Polity and Geography of India; 25
General Knowledge Current Affairs
Geography, History, Culture and Polity of Rajasthan 20
General English & Hindi 15
Mental Ability and Reasoning, Basic Numerical Efficiency 30
Basic Computer 10
Note:
1. The marks obtained by a candidate in examination will be counted for determining their order of merit.
2. The examination will contain multiple choice, objective type questions. There shall be negative marking, 1/3 mark shall be deducted for each wrong answer.
3. The Scheme and Syllabus of the papers for the examination shall be as prescribed by the Selection Board from time to time."
Rule-28 reads as under:-
Rule 28. Recommendations of the Selection Board.
"The Selection Board shall prepare a list of the candidates whom they consider suitable for appointment to the post and arrange in the order of merit On the basis of marks obtained in the written examination and forward the same to the Board of Revenue:
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (72 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Provided that the Selection Board may also to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies, keep names of suitable candidates on the reserve list. The Selection Board may, on requisition, recommend names of such candidates, in the order of merit to the Board of Revenue, within six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Selection Board."
(emphasis supplied)
10. Firstly in the Rules of 2019, there is no other specific procedure provided to prepare a final selection list except Rule 28, which envisages that the Selection Board shall prepare a merit list of candidates suitable for appointment, on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination and on the other hand, a conjoint reading of Rule 22, Schedule II, Note 3 of Rules of 2019 as extracted hereinabove, it appears that Scheme and Syllabus of the paper of the Examination shall be prescribed by the Board time to time. Note-3 specifically stipulates that Scheme of the examination of Patwari shall be prescribed by the Board, which obviously includes the scheme for preparation of result and there is no embargo for applying the process of normalization, therefore, it may not be said that application of process of normalization in the present examination, where due to large number of candidates, undisputedly examination has to be conducted in four shifts with different object type question paper, is dehors to the Rules or contrary to the legal proposition as settled in the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court.
11. For example, in case of Mahinder Kumar & Ors. V. High Court of Madhya Pradesh &ors.[(2013) 11 SCC 87], where in the selection of district judges by the High Court of Madhay Pradesh, the principle of normalization was adopted though in the notification, no reference about application of normalization (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (73 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] principle was given to prepare the merit list, however the Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the adoption of normalization procedure/technic placing reliance on Rules 7 of Madhay pradesh Higher Judicial Services Rules, which permit the High Court to adopt any procedure for selection of the candidates.
12. In Mahinder Kumar & Ors. V. High Court of Madhya Pradesh &ors.[(2013) 11 SCC 87], the Hon' ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"In a situation like this, where nearly 3000 candidates appeared for the written examination and the answer papers were evaluated by several District Judges, it cannot be held that there was every scope for variation in the assessment of the answers and the award of marks valued by different valuers. The High Court in exercise of its authority Under Rule 7, read along with Para 9(iv) adopted a fair procedure to normalise the marks of the candidates in order to assess their respective merits. Therefore, the expression "evaluation" used in Para 9(iv), should be held to fully empower the High Court to even resort to such a step in a case like this, where more number of District Judges evaluated the answer sheets and thereby, it required the intervention of the High Court on its administrative side, to find a fair method by which the normalisation of the marks could be worked out."
13. The basis on which the applicability of scaling system was approved, in the judgment of Mahinder Kumar (supra), the same has been reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court recently in case of State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. Vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi & ors.
[AIR 2022 SC 973], wherein the relevant para 36 is extracted hereunder:-
"It has important to note that Subhash Chandra Dixit [2003 (12) SCC 701]was decided by a Bench of two judges of this Court while Sanjay Singh (supra) and Mahinder Kumar (supra) were decided by Benches of three judge. Further, the decision in Sanjay Singh (supra) was noticed in paragraph 7 of the decision in Mahinder Kumar (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (74 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] (supra) but Rule 7 and Para 9 (iv) of the advertisement were found sufficiently wide enough to admit adoption of a procedure by which normalization of marks could be worked out."
This Court concludes that on conjoint reading of Rule 22 with Schedule-II, Note-3 of Rules of 2019 as extracted hereinabove, it may not be held that the method of normalization has been applied in the present multi shifts examination, is dehors the Rules or contrary to law in any manner. This Court finds support to its conclusion as on the basis of analogous and similar type of Rule, the application of scaling system was approved in case of mahinder Kumar (supra) and further the same has been affirmed in case of Atul Kumar Dwivedi (supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
14. Here the counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on Rule 28 of Rules 2019, to contend that the final result ought to have been prepared on the basis of actual and raw marks obtained by candidates in the written examination, in stead of applying the process of normalization. On the strength of the procedure to prepare the merit list of selected candidates, as provided in Rule 28, their contention is that applicability of the normalization process is not permissible in the present examination. This Court does not find any force in such contention. Marks obtained in written examination and marks obtained after normalization may not be misconstrued. Even this issue, raised by petitioners, stands answered by the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjay Singh & Anr. Vs. U.P. Public Service commission, Allahabad and Anr. [(2007)3 SCC 720], on (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (75 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] which counsel for petitioners themselves have placed reliance, wherein the Apex Court observed as follows:-
"20. We cannot accept the contention of the petitioner that the words "marks awarded" or "marks obtained in the written papers" refers only to the actual marks awarded by the examiner. 'Valuation' is a process which does not end on marks being awarded by an Examiner. Award of marks by the Examiner is only one stage of the process of valuation. Moderation when employed by the examining authority, becomes part of the process of valuation and the marks awarded on moderation become the final marks of the candidate. In fact Rule 20(3) specifically refers to the 'marks finally awarded to each candidate in the written examination', thereby implying that the marks awarded by the examiner can be altered by moderation."
15. In recent decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, delivered in case of Atul Kumar Dwivedi (supra) whereupon petitioners have also placed reliance, it has been observed that expression "marks obtained by each candidate in written examination, must be understood and construed as the marks obtained by candidates after normalization technique, thus when the process of normalization has been applied, then in that situation, marks obtained in written examination would be the marks scored by the candidates after the process of normalization.
16. Contrary to the aforestated contention, the alternative argument of the counsel for petitioners is that the formula followed by respondent-Board to normalization, is bad in law as instead of applying the process of scaling the marks, a process of moderation of marks ought to have been applied to remove Hawk Dove Effect or Examiner variability. Thus, it stands clear with such an alternative argument, petitioners have not disputed the necessity of applicability of the process of normalization to the Patwari exam but has tried to dispute the technique and (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (76 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] method used in the process of normalization. In this respect, the respondent-Board has clarified the factual situation that since the examination was conducted in four shifts with different question papers, therefore in order to eliminate the Hawk Dove Effect or Examiner variability, the necessary of adopting the process of normalization became incombent and a Committee, consisting high experts was constituted on 13.12.2021 to look into the matter. The Committee of expert thoroughly examined the scheme of examination as well as statistical analysis, suggested the formula of V. Natarajan and K. Gunasekaran to follow the process of normalization. It has been stated that only after the suggestion of the Expert Committee, the technique of normalization has been followed and provisional merit list dated 25.01.2022 has been prepared, after applying the technique of normalization as suggested by the Committee of Experts. It has also been stated that even thereafter, the Committee of Experts has re-looked on 07.02.2022 to its own previous report dated 31.12.2021 and has found that the applied formula was correctly used for normalization in the present recruitment examination to remove the Hawk Dove Effect or Examiner variability.
17. The reports of Expert Committee have been placed on record with additional affidavit dated 28.03.2022 which are being extracted herewith:-
Report of Normalization Committee dated 31.12.2021:-
"The members of the Committee have gone through the detailed advertisement No.03/2019 of Patwar Direct Recruitment Exam 2021 and pattern of examination.
Since the number of candidates was large, the examination was held in four different shifts on 23 rd October, 2021 and 24th October, 2021. The distribution of allotment of candidates in (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (77 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] different shifts was approximately same as per given below in the following table.
Sr.No Round wise date Registered Number
. Candidates Candidates
appeared
1 2 3 4
1 23-10-2021 Morning shift 386514 252023
(I)
2 23-10-2021 Evening shift 391214 257711
(II)
3 24-10-2021 Morning shift 394714 266822
(III)
4 24-10-2021 Evening shift 390553 265479
(IV)
Examination was conducted in four shifts and in each shift there was one compulsory paper. For each shift a separate paper was used. In each paper a set of 150 multiple choice questions were framed in which, one option was the correct answer. In each paper for every wrong answer, negative marks were awarded as per rules.
Since the examination was conducted in four different shifts, therefore, the committee considered the matter of normalization or otherwise of the scores. For this various statistical measures were computed:-
1. It was noted the number of non-disputed questions in Question Paper of first, second, third and fourth shifts was 147, 147, 150 and 147 respectively. Only the scores of these questions were considered for further analysis.
2. The average difficulty level of each of the four question papers. Further, standard deviations and coefficeint of variations of difficulty levels of the four papers were also computed. The committee observed that difficulty levels of all the four papers are different and also the standard deviations and the coefficient of variations.
3. In addition to the above, descriptive measures of the scores also computed and the frequency curves of scores obtained in four papers were drawn. (See Annexure-2) Conclusion:-
In view of the above statistical analysis, the committee recommends that there is need of scaling/normalization of the scores obtained by the candidates, as per the formula given in Annexure-1.
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (78 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] Note:-
1.While computing the various statistics measures the zero/negative scores in the papers were omitted.
2. It is recommended that no scaling of the zero/negative scores obtained to be done. At the same time there will be capping on maximum of the marks after the scaling.
Formula for scaling (Annx.1) S=Mt+{Xi-Mi)/σi} * σt Here S= Scaled Scores of a candidate Mt= Mean of combined scores σt- Standard Deviation of combined scores Xi= Raw scores of student in ith shift mi= Mean of Raw score of ith Shift σi= Standard Deviation of Raw Score of ith Shift
18. In the additional affidavit dated 28.03.2022 filed on behalf of respondent Board, it has also been stated that on 7.2.2022, the constituted Committee again considered its own report submitted to the answering respondents in contest of Patwari Director Recruitment Examination-2021 and the Committee found that the formula was correctly applied.
Report of Expert Committee dated 07.02.2022 is extracted hereunder:-
"The committee relooked it report submitted to Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur in its last meeting held on 31.12.2021 in Board Office in contest of Patwar Direct Recruitment Examination 2021.
The Committee in its said report, on the basis of statistical analysis of raw scores of the candidates, recommended for normalization of the raw scores and recommended the use of formula suggested by Natrajan duly approved by the High Court in its decision on 10.04.2015 and has been in use in RPSC conducted examinations wherever normalization of scores required.
The Committee in its today's meeting checked the application of the said formula of Normalization by the board, through applying in some of the case randomly (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (79 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] provided by the board. The committee found that the formula was correctly applied.
The committee of the meeting ended with vote of thanks.
Reference:-
1. Natrajan, V. and Gunasekaran, K. (1986), published by Association of Indian Universities, Delh.
2. Rajasthan High Court decision (P.12) dated 10.04.2015 in DB Civil Special Appeal No.1695/2014, 1696/2014, 75/2015, 121/2015, 122/2015, 123/2015,124/2015, 131/2015 and 132/2015."
19. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a case where the method of normalization has been applied by the Board arbitrarily, without seeking assistance of the Expert Body and neither application of the process of normalization is dehors the Rules of 2019 nor is contrary to law.
20. As far as the formula suggested and used for normalization is concerned, Respondent-Board has clarified the situation that when the examination was conducted in four shifts with different question papers, in order to eliminate the Hawk Dove Effect or examiner variability, the requirement for adopting the method of normalization became necessary to be applied to prepare the final result. Hence, office order dated 13.12.2021 was published by the Board that since Patwari Direct Recruitment Examination-2021 has been conducted in four shifts, the result shall be declared after application of normalization process. On 13.12.2021, a Committee was constituted consisting of high experts to look into the matter and as per the report of Expert Committee, the formula suggested by the experts was adopted for normalization. The Committee has suggested the well known and previously utilized formula, as suggested by V. Natarajan and K. Gunasekaran. In various (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (80 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] examinations, the normalization has been done after following the said formula and upheld by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, for example in Jai Singh' case (Supra).
21. In case of Jai Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
[(2011)2 WLC 46], the Division Bench approved the applicability of the scaling system, which was done by applying the formula V. Natarajan and K. Gunasekaran and by placing reliance on the judgment of U.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Subhash Chandra Dixit & Anr. [(2003)12 SCC 701], the Court observed as under:-
"44. In fact this Court in U.P. Public Services Commission vs. Subhash Chandra Dixit and others :
AIR 2004 SC 163, has found the scaling method to be fair since it seeks to eliminate the inconsistency in the marking standards of the examiners. This Court has observed:-
"There is a vast percentage difference in awarding of marks between each set of examiners and this was sought to be minimized by applying the scaling formula. If scaling method had not been used, only those candidates whose answer sheets were examined by liberal examiners alone would get selected and the candidates whose answer sheets were examined by strict examiners would be completely excluded, though the standard of their answers may be to some extent similar. The scaling system was adopted with a view to eliminate the inconsistency in the marking standards of the examiners.
26. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sanjay Singh (supra), the scaling resorted to consider the reference of the variation was appropriate so as to arrive at just result. It is not in dispute that in the RAS Examination and Subordinate Service Examination, the method of scaling had been resorted to with effect from 1993. In Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal (supra), this Court has upheld the action of the Commission in similar set of facts and the Apex court dismissed the SLP in limine.
27. In Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Ramesh Chandra Pilwal(supra) also, this Court relying upon the decision in Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal (supra) approved the method of scaling. Thus consistently, this Court has approved the method of (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (81 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] scaling in RAS Examination held by the Commission.
Decision of this Court in Dhanpat Mali Vs. RPSC & Ors. alongwith other writ applications decided vide order dated 27.10.2009 is in respect of RJS Rules, 2005 wherein the decision of the Apex Court in Sanjay Singh (supra) is squarely attracted as the question papers were similar to all the candidates. Whereas the scaling resorted to was held to be permissible considering large number of optional subjects available in the RAS and Subordinate Service Examination in question. Ratio of the decision in Ramesh Chandra Pilwal (supra) cannot be applied in the instant case. This Court has taken note of common post and also the fact that optional subjects were not available in Rajasthan Judicial Service examination. Thus, the ratio in the aforesaid case has different field to operate.
28. The Apex Court, in Sadananda Halo & Ors. Vs. Momtaz AliSheikh & Ors., (2008) 4 SCC 619, has held that validity of recruitment could not be judged on the basis of microscopic details. It was also not proper to get sample survey of successful/unsuccessful candidates done through judicial officers.The court has to decide on the basis of pleadings of the parties. A roving enqiury cannot be made by this Court.
29. When we consider the submission raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that absurd results have been caused due to application of the scaling method, chart which has been placed for consideration, indicates that the person who has obtained less than the average marks had been awarded marks in proportion and the person who has obtained higher marks, his marks had been reduced by applying the scaling method. There is consistency in the method of scaling which has been resorted to. The Committee which was appointed by this Court has also found on fact that the formula of scaling used is correct and the same scaling has been applied for each subject Same scaling has been applied for each examiner. No calculationmistake was found while operating formula.
30. In view of the aforesaid finding recorded by the Expert Committee appointed by this Court and even otherwise the petitioners counsel were unable to indicate that the formula was wrongly applied so as to give undue benefit even to a single candidate. Their main thrust of argument was that the scaling formula could not have been applied which we have found to be merit less. Certain observations have been made by the Committee for future guidance of the Commission which has also been observed by the Apex Court in Sanjay Singh (supra) that scaling formula has to be further studied and applied to the fact inappropriate manner. There has to be continuous study.
34. The submission raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that variation has been caused in ranking of selected candidates which has produced absurd results. We have carefully gone through the formula and find that it has been uniformly applied and it cannot be said that it has produced absurd results, rather it worked out the average mean of all the (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (82 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] subjects. Standard deviation of all the subjects to do so was necessary considering the optional subjects and papers and large number of examiners. It could not be said that moderation ought to have been applied for examiners variation whereas scaling for subjects variations. In our opinion, the scaling method has rightly been applied by the Commission after obtaining experts opinion. In compulsory papers, examiner-wise scaling has been done and not subject-wise. Where there was only one examiner in optional subjects, examiner-wise scaling has not been done. It has been resorted to where there was more than one examiner in optional papers and subject-wise scaling of the optional papers has been done which is permissible.
35. The object to be achieved was to bring all the candidates opting optional subjects to a common score. Object is not to test the subject proficiency of the candidate, but is to observe genera lability of a candidate. Thus, the scaling has been applied uniformly in optional subjects, without any deviation.
39. In our opinion, scaling method is not ousted by operation of the Rules though scaling is not provided under the Rule, at the same time in order to arrive at just result, the Commission can evolve any appropriate method or formula as laid down by the Apex Court in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Baloji Badhavath & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 1. The Apex Court held that Commission which has been constituted in terms of the provision made in Constitution of India is bound to conduct examination for appointment to the services of the State in terms of the Rules framed by the State. However, it is free to evolve procedure for conduct of examination. While conducting the examination in a fair and transparent manner as also following known principles of fair play, it cannot completely shut its eyes to the constitutional requirements. How the Commission would judge the merit of the candidates is its function. The Apex Court has laid down thus:
"25.How the Commission would judge the merit of the candidates is its function. Unless the procedure adopted by it is held to be arbitrary or against the known principles of fair play, the superior courts would not ordinarily interfere therewith. The State framed Rules in the light of the decision of the High Court in S. Jafeer Saheb. Per se, it did not commit any illegality. The correctness of the said decision, as noticed hereinbefore, is not in question having attained finality. The matter, however, would be different if the said rules per se are found to be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Nobody has any fundamental right to be appointed in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It merely provides for a right to be considered therefor. A procedure evolved for laying down the mode and manner for consideration of such a right can be interfered with only when it is arbitrary, discriminatory or wholly unfair." (emphasis supplied) (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (83 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
22. Petitioners have referred the judgment of Jairuddin Shaik (supra), where the High Court of Andhra Pradesh declined to issue a direction to the recruitment agency to follow the normalization principle. On facts of that case, the High Court noticed that a specific procedure for valuation of marks is prescribed in advertisement itself by G.O. Ms. No.67 dated 26.10.2018. The petitioners never challenged the prescribed clause. Therefore, such judgment does not render any help to petitioners. On the contrary, in this judgment, the Court placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of High Court delivered in case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Ramesh Chandra Pilwal [1997 (2) RLW 1348 Raj.] and the Court held as under:-
The Rajasthan High Court explained the Principle of Normalization in detail. Paragraph No. 18 of the judgment and the questions framed therein are relevant for the purpose of deciding this issue as adjudication of technique of Normalization and Moderation in the examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission when the scheme has already been approved by Division bench of the Rajasthan High Court. The Rajasthan High Court held that, The concept of moderation/normalisation and scaling has been explained in the Book Scaling-Techniques-What, Why and How written by V. Natarajan and K. Gunasekaran, wherein the authors have expressed the view that the traditional system of examinations has been criticised equally by teachers, administrators, students and the public, with the result reforms have been introduced in the system of examination. Through the book, an attempt has been made to introduce a procedure for scaling to deal with such misconceptions of marks and self-tradition of marks reporting. In India the scaling technique has been adopted for the first time by the Guwahati University in 1963 by Dr. H.J. Tailor, the then Vice-Chancellor. This system has been introduced whenever and wherever the situation so warrants. If different sets of marks are to be added and/or to be compared, they need to be scaled to a common standard where such (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (84 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] standard is lacking. The matter of scaling can be applied to mass-conducted public examinations whose results matter to thousand of students. The word scaling means the adjustment of marks to a common standard. It gives a better result where scripts are randomised, though, it has been mentioned in the book that this technique of sea-line has been shown to be practicable in a major examination covering more than 33000 candidates. But, this figure was only an illustration. It does not give any reason for fixing this cut of figure of 33000. Traditional concept of scaling and various methods of scaling allowing the scientific procedure to be adopted is contained in the said book. Though, the Union Public Service Commission has adopted this technique since long but the Rajasthan Public Service Commission has adopted it for the first time in the year 1993 which was challenged before a Division Bench in the case of Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal (supra). The High Court while considering the application of that technique has expressed the view that if large number of candidates had taken various optional papers with different standards and different varieties of scorabilities the need of moderation/standardisation became a must. The concept of moderation and normalisation has already been considered and accepted in the case of Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal v. State of Maharashtra 1994 (1) RLR 533. Reference was made to the judgment The Supreme Court in Surjit Kumar Dass v. Chairman, U.P.S.C. Special Leave Petitions No. 14000 and 15251 of 1986, decided on 11.3.1987 held as follows:
Thus we hold that:
(1) The writ petition was not maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation;
(2) Allegations of bias and favoritism have not been established;(3) The Chairman has committed no illegality in applying the technique of moderation in the examination;
(4) The learned Single Judge was not correct in holding that the technique of moderation could be made applicable only in those examination where the number, of candidates, is 33000 or more; (5) The scrutiny regarding the application of the technique of moderation is beyond the power of judicial review of the High Court as the decision has been taken by an expert body conducting the examination, more so when it has been done by a Constitutional Authority against which no mala fide could be established."
(emphasis supplied)
23. Having noticed above factual and legal situation, this Court finds that this is not a case where the Board has applied the (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (85 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] technique of normalization by its own and without seeking assistance of Expert Committee. The Board acted on the basis of technique of normalization as suggested by the Expert Committee and its within the arena of the Expert Committee, to judge the technique/formula required to apply for the purpose of normalization considering the scheme of examination. The report of Expert Committee, stipulates that a well known and well used formula as suggested by the V. Natarajan and K. Gunasekaran , has been applied, which has been used in various other similar type of examinations and has been upheld by the High Courts.
Reference of judgments of High Court, delivered in various cases have been given. One of the case is Jai Singh's case (supra).
24. It may be noticed that the report of Expert Committee is not under challenge nor this Court, while exercising its power of judicial review, can not act and sit as an appellate court, on the decision taken by the Expert Committee. Such principle has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union Public Service Commission vs M.Sathiya Priya And Ors [(2018) 15 SCC 796], In case of Basavaiah (Dr.) V. Dr. H.L. Ramesh [(2010)8 SCC 372], the Court held that:
"the courts have a very limited role particularly when no malafides have been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, in Amit Kumar v. M.P. Public Service Commission Writ Petition No.12314/2018 dated 25.06.2018 the candidates should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The Courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters."
In view of above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the formula applied by the Board for the process of normalization according to the advice and suggestion of the Expert Committee.
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (86 of 92) [CW-2679/2022]
25. Coming to the case of petitioners that because of a big variance in the selection of percentage of candidates between the first shift and fourth shift, petitioners who appeared in fourth shift have been placed under hostile discrimination, this Court finds that the respondent-Board applied the process of normalization in all bona fides and with fairness, after seeking assistance of the Committee of Experts. The formula for scaling has been applied uniformally with all candidates of four shifts, therefore it is not correct to say that variation in result has caused because of applying such formula for normalization. There seems no arbitrariness or discrimination on the part of Board on this count.
Thus, even if any variance has occurred, for that reason, the process of normalization cannot be presumed to be faulted. This principle has been set out in Jai Singh's case (supra). It is not in dispute that 30% reservation available to candidates of women category and maximum number of female candidates were accommodated in the first and second shifts on 23.10.2021, due to the religious festival "Karva Chouth" on next date i.e. 24.10.2021. That was done incidentally and randomly. Therefore, variance of selected candidates in the first shift, in comparison to the fourth shift is obvious. Further the respondent-Board, in the additional affidavit has clarified the factual scenario in following words:-
"That it is advertently denied that the first batch of the examination had the participation of 85%-90% of female candidates. Near about more than 15 lakhs candidates applied for the Patwar direct recruitment examination. In all the four shifts allotment of candidates was near about equal. In first shift there were 3,86,514 candidates out of which near about 43.02% were Male and 56.97% were Female, if this proportion is being taken on to the appeared (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (87 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] candidates it comes to 42.84% and 57:15%. So by this it becomes very clear that allegation levelled is baseless allegation. The Female (except the candidate of Dholpur and Alwar) were allocated the shift of 23.10.2021 sympathetically on account of Karva Chauth. That the exception regarding the district Dholpur and Alwar were made due to the elections of local bodies over there so as per law it was compulsion upon the examination conducting authority to make alternative arrangements. Therefore, all the candidates of Dholpur and Alwar were allotted examination Shifts of 24.10.2021 That there has been no malafide or arbitrary allocation by the humble answering respondents as it is clear that the allocation was done in near about equal number of the candidates. The allegation regarding the decrease in the result of Shift IV has been made. The base regarding this allegation was that the first Shift from where the maximum numbers of candidates were selected, in that Shift 85% - 90% female candidate appeared. The selection percentage of second shift is lesser than the selection percentage of the I Shift. Though more female candidates appeared in the second Shift in comparison to the first Shift. That the actual selection percentages of all Shifts are: (i) 33.9, (ii) 30.3, (iii) 22.17, (iv) 13.89. The datas of the percentage given in the Writ Petition are not proper.
That variation between the results of I Shift and the IV Shift is just because of the difficulty level of the question paper of the examination. A big downfall in the selection percentage is seen within the third and the fourth Shift. It is pertinent to mention that these both Shifts were having near about 95% to 96% male candidates. Thus, it is clear from above analogy that it is only the difficulty level of the question paper which played role in the difference in selection percentage from each shift. The normalization is done to provide equalise the difficulty level for each candidate in condition of examiner variable to avoid the Hawk- Dove affect.
That while assessing the difficulty level of the question paper in every Shift every candidate's Raw marks along with other data are being assessed thereafter a comparative chart is being prepared for every Shift and after deep intensive calculations the difficulty level is assessed for each paper.
That in the additional affidavit by the petitioners, deductions and the additions of the marks has been described. Here it is pertinent to mention that the deduction and addition of the marks is just because of the difficulty level of the question paper (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (88 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] That there has been no allegation regarding any malafidness, unfairness or arbitrary manner in allotment of the Shifts except one that most of the Women candidates have been allotted the Shifts of 23.10.2021. The allocation of the Shifts was made as per alphabetical order which amounts to random allocation. There has been transparency in every allocation. This allocation cannot be said to a bais allocation in any manner. The allocation of Women was due to sympathetical and reasonable cause which cannot be named to any malafide cause, even in that the allocation was done as per the alphabetical order.
That answering Respondent is under constitutional obligation to conduct fair and transparent recruitment process for public posts. In the present case, the answering Respondent has attempted to conduct the process in fair and impartial manner. The natural consequence for any recruitment process is selection of few candidates and ouster of remaining from the zone of consideration. The answering respondent cannot satisfy the demands of each and every candidate, rather as per the constitutional obligation, the answering Respondent is required to adopt impartial, fair, transparent and reasonable procedure."
26. After the discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds that the case of petitioners to face hostile discrimination is not proved merely on account of variance between the selected candidates in first shift and fourth shift. The allocation of candidates in fourth shift were made alphabetically, except for the candidates from two districts namely, Alwar and Dholpur, due to Panchayat Elections in such districts and adjustment of female candidates with their alphabetical name on 23.10.2021 is incidental, because of a religious festival of women "Karva Choudh" on 24.10.2021. There seems no arbitrariness or irregularity on the part of the Board neither for allocation of candidates in fourth shift nor for applying the method/technique of normalization as suggested by the Expert Committee and same has been applied uniformly therefore, the final merit list prepared by the Board may not be declared as faulty. Merely because petitioners have not been declared (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (89 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] successful, who appeared in the fourth shifts and the result of fourth shift remain lower in percentage than the result of first shift or other shifts, the final result may not be quashed. Thus, the case of hostile discrimination of petitioners is not proved and not acceptable.
27. Therefore, on discussion of factual and legal aspect, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a case where ex post facto application of normalization process is arbitrary and dehors the Rules of 2019 or contrary to law rather it has transpired that the respondent-Board followed the method/technique of normalization uniformly and according to suggestion of the Committee of high experts, which is neither contrary nor impermissible in law. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in negative, against petitioners.
Point No.II
28. As far as scope of judicial review in respect of applying the method of normalization by the Board to equalize the difficultly level of examination and to provide similar level playing field to all candidates, where undisputedly examination was conducted in four different shifts with different question papers, the issue has extensively been discussed in catena of Judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Recently in case of Atul Kumar Dwivedi (supra) placing reliance on the earlier line on decisions in case of Subhash Chandra Dixit (supra), Sanjay Singh (supra) and Mahinder Kumar (supra) & Sunil Kumar (supra), it has been held that where there is no lack of bona fide or the allegation of mala fides against the recruitment agency to adopt the normalization process, the same should not be interfered lightly by a writ court.
(D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (90 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] The relevant portion of the judgment of Atul Kumar Dwivedi (supra)reads as under:-
"In conclusion, the exercise undertaken by the Board and adopting the process of normalization at the initial stage, that is to say, at the level of Rule 15 (b) of Recruitment Rules was quite consistent with the requirements of law. The power exercised by the Board was well within its jurisdiction and as emphasized by the High Court there were no allegations of mala fides or absence of bona fide at any juncture of the process. One more facet of the matter is the note of caution expressed by this Court in para graph 20 of its decision in Sunil Kumar and Ors. Vs. Bihar Public Service Commission & ors. (2016) 2 SCC 495 [LQ/SC/2015/1413]. As observed by this Court, the decisions made by the expert bodies, including the Public Service Commissions, should not be lightly interfered with, unless instances of arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power are made out."
29. On facts of the present case, respondent-Baord has clarified that the distribution of candidates in four batches was made alphabetically according to their name and the method of normalization was applied uniformly and according to the advice of the Expert Committee. It has already been discussed that scope of judicial review is not to act like an appellate authority over the decisions of Board and over the report of Expert Committee. The court must have maintain its constraints and limitations in academic matters. As held by the Apex Court in case of M. Sathiya Priya (Supra) and Basavaiah (Dr.) Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh (supra).
30. The report of Expert Committee is not under challenge and merely on account of fact that the ratio of result of candidates appeared in fourth shift remain lower to the ratio of selected candidates appeared in first shift and other two shifts, it may not be assumed that the respondents-Board acted malafiledly in (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (91 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] applying the method/technique of normalization to prepare the merit list. Except showing the variance in ratio of successful candidates between the first batch and fourth batch, no other kind of allegation of mala fide or lack of bona fide have been attributed by petitioners neither against Expert Committee nor against the Board. Issue of bona fide discrimination has also been discussed in forgoing paragraph and decided against petitioners. Hence, this Court does not find any mala fide or lack of bona fide or unfairness on the part of Board in preparing the result. The respondents have not violated Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in preparing the final result. Thus, within scope of judicial review, no interference in the final result is warranted. Accordingly, the point No.II is decided against petitioners.
31. Admittedly, petitioners are candidates who appeared in the Patwari Examination-2021 in fourth and last shift in evening on 24.10.2021 and after declaration of the provisional merit list dated 25.01.2022, prepared by the Board following the formula/method of normalization as advised by the Expert Committee, when they could not find place their role numbers in the provisional merit list, challenged the provisional merit list dated 25.01.2022 on the ground that application of the formula/method of normalization has resulted into hostile discrimination with the candidates of fourth shift and the same is dehors to the Rules of 2019, as such arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
This Court has reached to the conclusion that the Board has applied the process of normalization uniformly and that too after (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) (92 of 92) [CW-2679/2022] seeking assistance of the Expert Committee, which is neither dehors to the Rules of 2019 nor arbitrary and mala fide and there is no violation of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India on the part of Board in preparing the final result.
32. Therefore, for the discussions and reasons made hereinabove, this Court is not inclined to quash and upset the provisional merit list dated 25.01.2022 and the final merit list dated 27.05.2022. It has also been noticed that pursuant to the final selection list, appointment to selected candidates have been given and it has been informed that only few appointments on the unfilled posts from the waiting list are to be made. The respondent-Board may proceed to operate the waiting list.
33. As a result, all writ petitions failed and are hereby dismissed.
34. Stay applications and any other pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J TN/ (D.B. SAW/267/2023 and 1 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:55:13 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)