Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nitesh Patidar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:32681) on 24 July, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:32681]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9768/2025
1. Nitesh Patidar S/o Gatu Lal Patidar, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Jethana, Tehsil Sagwara, District Dungarpur,
Rajasthan.
2. Mahesh Kumar S/o Nand Lal Sharma, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Tanwara Ladnun, District Deedwana-
Kuchaman.
3. Himanshu Suthar S/o Manohar Suthar, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Vpo Ghata Ka Gaon, Tehsil Galiyakot, District
Dungarpur.
4. Rakesh Ruile S/o Prabhu Ram Ruile, Aged About 20 Years,
R/o Vpo Dhani Mana Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu.
5. Ankit Kumar S/o Banwari Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Ward No.10, 64 Lnp, 2 69, District Sriganganagar.
6. Ashok Jat S/o Bhagwati Lal Jat, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Surpur, Kapasan, District Chittorgarh.
7. Sukh Lal Upadhyay S/o Radhy Shyam Upadhyay, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Meharasar, Upadhiyan,
District Churu.
8. Rakesh Rinwaa S/o Panchu Ram Rinwa, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Vpo Jhalra, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur.
9. Mana Ram S/o Bhikha Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Sanwalasi, V/p Sanwlasi District Barmer.
10. Dilip Singh S/o Amar Singh Panwar, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Kambeshwar Niwaj, Tartoli Aburoad, District Sirohi.
11. Altaf Kuraishee S/o Salim Mohammad, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Vyapariyo Ka Mohalla, Kachari Road, Merta
City, District Nagaur.
12. Manju Bala W/o Shyopat Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Vpo Govindpura 18 Gg, District Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
13. Vipul Kumar S/o Lalu, Aged About 23 Years, R/o V-
Motapada, Po Dungra Chhota, Tehsil Sajjangarh, District
Banswara, Rajasthan.
14. Sachin Ganoliya S/o Omprakash, Aged About 25 Years, R/
o Ward No. 27, Regar Basti, Rajgarh, District Churu,
Rajasthan.
15. Krishapal Singh S/o Shridal Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:01:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32681] (2 of 9) [CW-9768/2025]
R/o Plot No. 31 Krishna Vihar Colony, Sumerpur, District
Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of
Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Government Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Staff Selection
Board, Jaipur, Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan,
Agriculture Management Institute Premises, Durgapura,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Anirudh Kothari &
Mr. Saransh Vij
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AG with
Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma & Mr. Anirudh
Singh Shekhawat
Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG
Mr. Manish Patel for RSMSSB.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order 24/07/2025
1. At the very inception, Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition qua petitioner No.4.
2. In view of the submission made, the permission as sought for is granted. The present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn qua petitioner No.4.
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:01:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32681] (3 of 9) [CW-9768/2025]
3. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of result dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure-6) whereby the result of the recruitment process for 'Animal Attendant' has been declared.
4. The case of the petitioners is that a scaling formula has been adopted in the present recruitment process whereas as per the conditions of advertisement dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure-2), it was only to be a process of negative marking. As per the condition of advertisement, one mark for each correct answer and deduction of 1/4th mark for each incorrect answer was to be made. The advertisement nowhere prescribes for the scaling/normalisation/rationalization method to be adopted.
5. It has further been submitted that despite adopting the scaling formula, the RAW marks of the candidates have not been declared. Further, no cut-off marks for each category have been declared along with the result.
6. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Advocate relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in Sanjay Singh & Anr. vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Anr.; (2007) 3 SCC 720.
7. Responding to the above arguments as raised on behalf of the petitioners, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent- Board that more than 17 lac applications were received in pursuance to the advertisement in question and hence a requirement arose to conduct the examination in different shifts as a written examination for 17 lac candidates could not have been conducted in one shift.
8. As soon as it was decided that the examination was to be conducted in different shifts, it was realised that to maintain a (Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:01:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32681] (4 of 9) [CW-9768/2025] parity, the normalisation/scaling method would be required to be adopted. Therefore, at the said stage itself, vide circular dated 05.06.2024 (Annexure-3) it was notified that the examination would be conducted in different shifts and further, the normalisation method would be adopted for the recruitment in question. The said circular was notified to be a part of the original advertisement.
9. So far as the ground of non-declaration of RAW marks of the candidates is concerned, it is admitted that after the said ground been raised on the first date of hearing, the RAW marks of the unsuccessful candidates have been declared by the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Staff Selection Board (RSMSSB).
10. So far as the scaling formula as adopted by the Board is concerned, it has been submitted that the same was recommended by an Expert Committee which was appointed for the said purpose. The Committee, after a thorough consideration of the question papers of all the six shifts, computed the difficulty level and then, as per the difficulty level of the question papers in all the six shifts, recommended a specific formula so as to maintain parity between the candidates appearing in all the six shifts and attempting different question papers.
11. Learned Advocate General submitted that it is not the case of the petitioners that the Board acted malafidely or any irrational/arbitrary formula had been adopted while applying the scaling formula.
12. Learned AG further submitted that the fact that a normalisation process would be adopted was very well intimated to the candidates at the first stage itself and now, when the (Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:01:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32681] (5 of 9) [CW-9768/2025] candidates participated in the said process without raising any objection to the same at that stage, cannot, after the result been declared, challenge the same.
13. A further ground has been raised that the Courts would not sit in appeal on the recommendations/opinion of an Expert Committee. If the report/recommendation of the Committee is not found to be malafide, the Courts should not generally interfere with the same.
14. In support of his submissions, Mr. Prasad, learned Advocate General relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court judgments in Deependra Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.; 2024 INSC 362, State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi & Ors.; (2022) 11 SCC 578, Gourav Sharma vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission; 2022 Supreme (Raj.) 555 and the Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3795/2022; Devika Banjara vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (decided on 14.02.2024).
15. After hearing the counsels at length on 23.07.2025, the Court directed learned AG to furnish the Expert Committee report for perusal of this Court on the next date i.e. today. The same has been furnished to the Court for perusal today. This Court thoroughly examined the said report and even sought the assistance of the officer-in-Charge who was present before the Court and explained the same.
16. Learned Senior Counsel raised an objection that the copy of the said Expert Committee has not been supplied to him.
17. In the opinion of this Court, the same is not required to be done. The report had been called by the Court for its own (Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:01:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32681] (6 of 9) [CW-9768/2025] examination and to satisfy itself regarding the formula as recommended by the Committee and as adopted by the Board. If the petitioners desire to obtain a copy of the said report, it is very well open to them to proceed in accordance with law.
18. Heard the counsels and perused the record.
19. Admittedly, the fact of the written examination for the recruitment in question to be conducted in different shifts and adoption of a normalisation process, was notified vide amended circular dated 05.06.2024 (Annexure-3). Meaning thereby, all the incumbents who were inclined to participate in the process were aware of the same at that point of time. None assailed the said condition/procedure at that point of time. Meaning thereby, none of the candidates was aggrieved of the said process to be adopted by the respondent-Board.
20. As is the settled position of law, any candidate who participates in a recruitment process, cannot at a subsequent stage, challenge any condition of the advertisement after having declared unsuccessful. Dealing with an identical situation, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tajvir Singh Sodhi And Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others; (2023) 17 SCC 147, observed and held as under :
"It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In other words, simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or (Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:01:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32681] (7 of 9) [CW-9768/2025] that there was some lacuna in the process. Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned before a court of law, the rationale behind recasting the selection criteria, as they wilingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been so recast. Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against the same only after they had been declared unsuccessful."
21. It is not in dispute that more than 17 lac candidates applied qua the vacancies in question and it is humanly impossible to conduct an examination for that number of candidates on one particular date or in one shift. The decision of the Board to conduct the examination in different shifts therefore, was the most natural consequence.
22. The issue therefore, is when any examination for recruitment is conducted in different shifts, what can be the mechanism to maintain a parity between the candidates who appeared in different shifts and attempted different question papers?
It is the most natural consequence of an examination been conducted in different shifts that the question papers can be easy in one shift and tough in some other shift. In those circumstances, a parity definitely has to be maintained between different set of candidates appearing in different shifts.
23. As is the settled position of law, the best method to maintain the parity is adoption of normalisation/scaling/rationalisation process. This is what has been done in the present matter, and rightly so.
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:01:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32681] (8 of 9) [CW-9768/2025]
24. Coming on to the issue whether the scaling formula as adopted by the respondent-Board is correct or whether some other formula ought to have been adopted, this Court is of the clear view that the same is not within the domain of the Courts to decide as to which formula would have been better or which formula ought to have been adopted by the recruiting agency.
25. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in recent judgment of Deependra Yadav and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others; 2024 SCC online SC 724, the process of selection involves high decree of expertise and discretion and it would not be appropriate for the Courts to substitute their judgment for that of a selection committee. The Court further observed that it is not within the domain of the Court, exercising the power of judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and is within the expert domain of a selection committee, subject of course to a caveat that if there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules, only in such cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the Courts intervene.
Applying the above ratio to the present case, it is not even the case of the petitioners that there was violation of any statutory rule neither there was any allegation of malafides or malfeasance.
26. Furthermore, this Court has thoroughly gone through the Expert Committee report and finds it totally justified wherein complete consideration of the difficulty standard of the question papers in all the shifts has been made.
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:01:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32681] (9 of 9) [CW-9768/2025]
27. No case for interference is made out. The present writ petition is hence, dismissed.
28. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J 296-KashishS/-
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:01:41 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)