Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manish Parihar vs Rajasthan High Court ... on 7 October, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:43984-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19565/2025
Manish Parihar S/o Bheem Raj Parihar, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
Naya Baas, Mangra Punjla, Mandore, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Its Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Poonia
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 07/10/2025
1. Learned counsel for the respondents at the threshold submits that the controversy involved in this matter is more specifically covered by a judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gokala Ram Vs. The Rajasthan High Court & Anr.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14279/2024 decided on 12.09.2024 which is reproduced hereinbelow :-
"1. Both these writ petitions having common controversy wereheard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Briefly stated facts of the present matter are that the respondent- Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur had issued an advertisement dated 09th April 2024 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the direct recruitment against 222 posts of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate in the Rajasthan Judicial Services. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioners (Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 06:13:41 PM) (Downloaded on 17/10/2025 at 07:21:40 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:43984-DB] (2 of 6) [CW-19565/2025] who belong to Ex-Serviceman- OBC/NCL category applied for the advertised posts.
3. The advertisement dated 09th April 2024 manifestly provides that the selection for the advertised posts shall be made as per the scheme of examination envisaged under the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2010'). The scheme of examination as provided under the Rules of 2010 clearly indicates that the Preliminary Examination shall be conducted for the purpose of screening and preparing list(category wise) of further eligible candidates being fifteen times the number of vacancies in the respective categories. Thereupon, at the second stage of the examination, viz., the written tests followed by the interview shall be held. The Rules of 2010 as well as the advertisement makes it quite clear that the marks obtained by the candidates in the Preliminary Examination shall not be counted/added up for the purpose of preparation of final select/merit list.
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that they had secured higher marks in comparison to the Ex-Serviceman- General category candidates therefore the respondents ought to have applied the migration formula and migrated the petitioners in the Ex-
Serviceman- General category at the Preliminary Examination stage.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the merit list of Preliminary Examination published by the respondent provides cut-off marks of various categories, viz. General, SC, ST and OBC categories, etc. but no separate cut-off marks have been published for the candidates belonging to the Ex-Serviceman category. Learned counsel submitted that the acts & inaction of the respondents in not identifying or recognizing the eligible candidates falling under the Ex-Serviceman category by giving separate cut-off, for the purpose of horizontal reservation category-wise has resulted in hostile discrimination and is in violation of the Constitutional mandate envisaged under Article 14 & Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners belong to the Ex-Serviceman- OBC/NCL category and have obtained higher marks than the candidates belonging to Ex-Serviceman- General category therefore the petitioners are entitled to be placed in the merit list of Ex-Serviceman- General category by applying the principle of migration.
6. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently and fervently submitted that the petitioners who consciously took part in the process of selection cannot be (Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 06:13:41 PM) (Downloaded on 17/10/2025 at 07:21:40 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:43984-DB] (3 of 6) [CW-19565/2025] permitted to question the advertisement or methodology adopted by the respondents for making selection, on them having been declared unsuccessful in the Preliminary Examination. Learned counsel further submitted that a coordinate Division Bench of this Court in the case of "Sunita Meena v. Rajasthan High Court & Anr.":
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1244/2022 decided on 20 th April 2022, after considering similar controversy related to Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate under the Rajasthan Judicial Service examination
- 2022 was pleased to hold that the purpose of the first stage i.e. Preliminary Examination is mainly to shortlist candidates category wise under the scheme of the rules with a clear stipulation that the marks obtained in the Preliminary Examination shall not be counted for the purpose of preparation of final merit list. Therefore, at this stage of examination, rule of migration will not apply but the same shall apply only at the time of preparation of final merit list based on the marks obtained by the candidates in the main/written examination and interview. It was thus prayed that the present writ petitions may be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsels for the parties at Bar and perused the material available on record.
8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sunita Meena (Supra), while relying upon the decisions of this Court in various other matters, held as under:
"32. Dealing with the similar challenge of claim of applicability of rule of migration in the matter of preparation of list of candidates for being admitted to main examination, relying upon the decision in the case of Chattar Singh (supra), Megha Sharma (supra), Dharamveer Tholia (supra) as also Garima Sharma (supra), the legal position has been re-affirmed in Kushi Ram Gurjar (supra) as below:"Considering the view expounded by Division Benches of this Court in the above cases while placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Chattar Singh (supra), it is clear that the concept of vertical reservation and migration to the higher category cannot be applied in a shortlisting exercise which is provided under Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts (Driver and Class IV Employees) Service Rules, 2017........
33. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khushi Ram Gurjar (supra) noticed that the judgment of this Court in the case of Hanuman Jat (supra) has been challenged in the Supreme Court but the argument that the judgment of the High Court has been stayed by the Supreme Court was not accepted taking into consideration that an interim arrangement was made by the Supreme Court.
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 06:13:41 PM) (Downloaded on 17/10/2025 at 07:21:40 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:43984-DB] (4 of 6) [CW-19565/2025]
34. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra) has now settled the controversy with regard to principles applicable in the matter of vertical and horizontal migration while preparing merit list, that being a case specific to claim of OBC (female) securing higher marks than the last candidate appointed in general category of general (female). In the light of consistent view by this Court in series of decisions cited hereinabove, the rule of migration of reserved category candidate from his/her own category to general category to be placed in the merit list would be applicable while preparing final merit list and not when the exercise of shortlisting of candidates category wise is done at the stage of screening by way of Preliminary Examinations, as has been done in the present case. Issue whether the principle of migration would apply even at the stage of shortlisting the candidates for being admitted to main examination was neither raised nor decided in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner could not bring to our notice any authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in this regard. Therefore, we have no reason to take a different view than what has been taken in the cases of Dharamveer Tholia (supra), Hanuman Jat (supra), Megha Sharma (supra), Khushi Ram Gurjar (supra) and Garima Sharma (supra) which are the judgments rendered by taking into consideration the scheme of examination and governing rules of recruitment analogous to those applicable in the case in hand.
35. Resultantly, the petition being sans substratum is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed.
9. It is now a well settled position in law that rule of migration under the Rules of 2010 will not have any applicability while preparation of select list at the stage of screening through Preliminary Examination. The rule of migration will only become applicable at the time of preparation of final merit list based on marks obtained by the candidates in written examination and interview. We may also add here that the Rules of 2010 and the advertisement dated 09th April 2024 both provide for preparation of a select/merit list after Preliminary Examination category-wise. The petitioners did not challenge the same before participating in the Preliminary Examination. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Rekha Sharma v. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr.":Civil Appeal No.5051/2023 decided on 21st August 2024 held that the candidates after they having found that their names do not appear in the list of successful candidates of Preliminary Examination, could (Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 06:13:41 PM) (Downloaded on 17/10/2025 at 07:21:40 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:43984-DB] (5 of 6) [CW-19565/2025] not have questioned the result on the ground that the respondents had not declared the cut-off marks for their categories.
10. In that view of the matter, we do not find any illegality, perversity or infirmity in the action of the respondents in denying migration to the petitioner in the Ex-Serviceman- General category at the stage of Preliminary Examination itself. Both thewrit petitions are dismissed accordingly.
11. No order as to costs."
2. Counsel for the respondents submits that Gokala Ram (Supra) was dismissed on 28.02.2025 by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (diary) No.8562/2025. He further submits that the controversy is also settled by a judgment passed by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunita Meena Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Anr.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1244/2022 decided on 20.04.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gajendra Singh relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Deependra Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.;
S.L.P. No.5817/2023 decided on 01.05.2024, more particularly, in paragraph Nos.30, 31 and 32 which was pertaining to Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015.
4. In Rajasthan, the preliminary examination is conducted for the purpose of screening and preparing list (category-wise further eligible candidates being 15 times the number of vacancies in the respective categories). Undisputably, the very same issue has been duly considered by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Gokala Ram (Supra) and Sunita Meena (Supra) and further the S.L.P. in the case of Gokala Ram was dismissed on 28.02.2025 by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (diary) No.8562/2025.
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 06:13:41 PM) (Downloaded on 17/10/2025 at 07:21:40 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:43984-DB] (6 of 6) [CW-19565/2025]
5. Thus, this Court find no reason to interference in this matter, accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 245-Arjun/-
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 06:13:41 PM) (Downloaded on 17/10/2025 at 07:21:40 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)