Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mahipal Yadav S/O Beerbal Yadav vs Rajasthan High Court on 18 September, 2023
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Praveer Bhatnagar
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7564/2023
1. Rajat Yadav Son Of Shri Nihal Singh, Aged About 32
Years, R/o 68 Krishna Nagar, Near Krishna Nagar Park,
Jaipur Rajasthan Roll No-606495
2. Hitesh Kumar Son Of Manohar Lal, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Regar Mohalla Luniyapura Aburoad Sirohi, Rajasthan
Roll No-881406
3. Vikram Verma Son Of Shri Ramswaroop Verma, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Fatehpur Road, Ward No. 02,
Mandawa, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan Roll No- 783630
4. Garima Sharma Daughter Of Mahendra Kumar Sharma,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o Plot No 292, In Front Of
Rewadmal Dharmshala, Mahtab Singh Ka Nohra, Alwar,
Rajasthan Roll No-293288
5. Mohan Lal Tetarwal Son Of Pema Ram Tetarwal, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Ward No.33 Pachar Road
Kishangarh Renwal Jaipur, Rajasthan Roll No-708978
6. Vinod Kumar Son Of Mohan Singh, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Vpo Lakhanpur The Nabdai, Bharatpur,
Rajasthan Roll No-634537
7. Pukhraj Singh Son Of Foosa Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Bankaniyon Ka Vas, Magne Ki Dhani, Barmer
Rajasthan Roll No-305111
8. Prince Nainwaya Son Of Roop Chand Nainwaya, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Court Road Ladiya Mohalla Near
Chowki School Alwar Rajasthan Roll No-615115
9. Pawan Prajapat S/o Prahlad Prajapat, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Ward No 11 Rawan Tiba Ki Dhani Goner
Jaipur Rajasthan Roll No-712894
10. Akshay Garg Son Of Sunita Garg, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Mathura Gate, Beckray Wali Gali, Bharatpur,
Rajasthan Roll No-697175
11. Navdeep Kumar Choubay Son Of Dinesh Kumar
Choubay, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 533 Shahakari
Samiti Ke Pass, Dhikola, Shahpura, Bhilwara, Rajasthan
Roll No-319183
12. Aditi Sharma Daughter Of Mohan Lal Sharma, Aged
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:05 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (2 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
About 24 Years, R/o Ward No 18, Khejroli, Jaipur,
Rajashan Roll No- 694707
13. Sandeep Singh Yadav Son Of Shyo Karan Dusad, Aged
About 40 Years, R/o 3-D/162, Chitrakoot, Near Vaishali
Nagar Jaipur Rajasthan Roll No- 758879
14. Gopal Singh Ratnoo Son Of Sankar Singh Ratnoo, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o VPO- Dasori, Kolayat, Bikaner,
Rajasthan Roll No- 657593
15. Payal Vyapani Daughter Of Murlidhar Vyapani, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Nai Aabadi Tagor Park Ke Pass,
Pratapgarh, Rajasthan Roll No-856378
16. Virendra Singh S/o Omkar Singh Shekhawat, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o 20-B, Surya Nagar-B, Nadi Ka
Phatak, Benar Road, Jhothwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan Roll
No-706160
17. Surendra Kumar Son Of Bora Ram, Aged About 33
Years, R/o 168, Meghwalon Ka Bas, Banwarla, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan Roll No- 470650
18. Ugrasain Son Of Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Chack-5Lm, Post-9Lm, Anupgarh Sri Ganganagar,
Rajasthan Roll No-890113
19. Neha Sankhala Daughter Of Ramesh Kumar, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Karni Mata Mandir Ke Pass, Karni Colony,
Nagaur, Rajasthan Roll No-805692
20. Mukesh Kumar Bajya Son Of Jhabar Mal Bajya, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Vill Gadri Post Badhal The
Kishangarh Renwal, Jaipur, Rajasthan Roll No- 420746
21. Mahesh Godara Son Of Jagdeesh Godara, Aged About
31 Years, R/o Vpo Dhannasar, Rawatsar, Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan Roll No- 362802
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
Connected With
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (3 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7995/2023
Yogita Soni Daughter Of Shri Begraj Soni, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 10, Ladunun, Near Chungi Naka,
Sujangarh, Churu, At Present Resident Of 516-B, Pawan Puri,
Benaad Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7404/2023
1. Mahipal Yadav S/o Beerbal Yadav, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Dhani Khariwali Arniya, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
2. Shubham Jangid S/o Rajesh Jangid, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o A-60, Adarsh Colony, Shanti Nagar, Hatwara Road,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Dhara Singh S/o Ram Chandra, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
140, Nawam, Roopangarh, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7485/2023
Akash Dagur S/o Shri Sahdev Dagur, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Village Bachhamadi Noh, Teshil And District Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Bench Jaipur Through
Registrar General
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7493/2023
Mahendra Singh Haritwal S/o Shri Ramswaroop Haritwal, Aged
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (4 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
About 28 Years, R/o 82, Panna Patal Ki Dhani, Kapdiyawas,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through The Registrar
General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7801/2023
Nimisha Goyal D/o Shri Ashok Goyal, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident Of 804, Hanuman Vihar, B.K. Kaul Nagar, Ajmer At
Present Koteshwar Colony, Tower Wali Gali, Hathi Kheda
Chauraha, Foysagar Road, Ajmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Registrar
(General).
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7855/2023
Subhash Chandar Son Of Ramdev Singh, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident Of Village Fakirpura, Post Kasli, Tehsil Dhod, District
Sikar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7884/2023
Ravi Meena S/o Prem Narayan Meena, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident Of Aada Gela Ki Dhani, Meenawala, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (5 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7886/2023
Sushil Kumar Son Of Shri Chet Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Chak Thakruwala, VPO Badopal, The Pilibangan, Hanumangarh
Rajasthan. Current Adress-D-59, Akshardham Mandir, Vaishali
Nagar, Jaipur. Roll No.359689.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7893/2023
Aditya Choudhary S/o Sayar Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Village Habu Ka Bas, Post Kishanpura, Chomu, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7911/2023
1. Karshan Kumawat S/o Shri Bihari Lal, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Ward No.20, Behind Government Hospital,
Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
2. Sunil Kumar Dhakar S/o Satyanarayan Dhakar, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Village Facher Solanki Post
Unkhaliya, Tehsil Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh,
Rajasthan.
3. Anju Kumari D/o Shri Randheer Singh, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Village Neshal, District Churu, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (6 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
4. Reema Sharma D/o Shri Anil Sharma, Aged About 33
Years, R/o A-7 Metro City, Padampur Road, Behind Lav
Kush School, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan
5. Surendra Singh Kulariya S/o Shri Moola Ram Kulariya,
Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Sangasar, Tehsil-
Ratangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.
6. Ankit Kumar S/o Shri Ummed Singh, Aged About 25
Years, R/o VPO Bakara, District- Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Through Its Registrar (General),
Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Principal Seat Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8036/2023
Krishn Gopal Parewa Son Of Shri Johari Lal Parewa, Aged About
33 Years, Resident Of Village Post Rasidpur, Tehsil Mahwa,
District Dausa (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Registrar (Examination)
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8355/2023
Jai Kishan Saini S/o Shri Kailash Chand Saini, Aged About 31
Years, R/o 182, Police Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 22, Chhawani, Neem
Ka Thana, Sikar, Distt. Sikar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8356/2023
1. Yashwant Somra Son Of Shri Sher Singh, Aged About 24
Years, Resident Of Village Moi Sadda, Post Moi Purani,
District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
2. Mohit Gupta Son Of Shri Satyanarayan Gupta, Aged
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (7 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
About 28 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Ghans,
District Tonk (Raj.)
3. Savita Pareek Daughter Of Shri Ramesh Pareek, Aged
About 25 Years, Resident Of 5-B, Narayan Vihar Colony,
Sector-3, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Amit Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Ganesh Narayan
Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Hariom
Colony, Dudu Road, Sambhar Lake, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. Nikita Daughter Of Shri Udaiveer Singh, Aged About 27
Years, Resident Of Village And Post Mohanpura, Tehsil
Chidawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
6. Samar Khan Son Of Shri Sayeed Khan, Aged About 25
Years, Resident Of Subhash Colony, Koli Pada,
Gangapurcity, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
7. Santosh Yadav Daughter Of Shri Satyanarayan Yadav,
Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of 6, Mahaveer Colony,
Toll Tax, Jaipur (Raj.)
8. Vagisha Gupta Daughter Of Shri Kamlesh Dhamani, Aged
About 23 Years, Resident Of House No. 2-J-36, Mahaveer
Nagar-III, Kota (Raj.)
9. Sanjay Sharma Son Of Shri Jayant Sharma, Aged About
32 Years, Resident Of Dhanmandi Road, Madan Attar Ki
Gali, Jhalawar (Raj.)
10. Kesaram Son Of Shri Andaram, Aged About 22 Years,
Resident Of Khichdo Ki Dhani, Premsagar, Bhalasariya,
Jodhpur (Raj.)
11. Kunal Giri Goswami Son Of Shri Madan Giri Goswami,
Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Kotdi,
Tehsil Railmagara, District Rajsamand (Raj.)
12. Balkishan Sankhala Son Of Shri Om Prakash Sankhla,
Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Opposite Hanuman
Temple, Rathori Kuwan, Nagaur (Raj.)
13. Karnideep Singh Son Of Shri Roopdan Charan, Aged
About 23 Years, Resident Of 36, Vishnu Nagar, Opposite
R.T.O. Office, Vakeelon Ka Hattha, Jaipur (Raj.)
14. Siddharth Lalas Son Of Shri Man Mohan Lalas, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of 821, Village Ashapura Valley,
Near New High Court, Jhalaman, Jodhpur (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (8 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
15. Lakshya Lalas Son Of Shri Man Mohan Lalas, Aged About
30 Years, Resident Of Charan Street, Near Jhalrabera
Mahamandir, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8368/2023
1. Chandra Prakash Sharma S/o Sh. Murari Lal Sharma,
Aged About 25 Years, R/o Lalaji Wali Gali, Tehsil Deeg,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan, Roll No. 635223.
2. Abhishek Sharma S/o Sh. Rajendra Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Ward No. 33, Ganesh Mill, Udai
Mode, Gangapur City, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan Roll No.
830961.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8378/2023
1. Nitesh Sahu S/o Ramesh Sahu, Aged About 23 Years, R/0
Khatiko Ki Hathai Ke Pass, Bada Bazar Sambhar Lake,
Jaipur Rajasthan
2. Ashish Kumar Gurjar S/o Ramdhan Gurjar, Aged About 26
Years, R/0 Village Balyakala Kalwad Post Kant Via Achroal
Tehsil Amer Jaipur Rajasthan
3. Kunal Sharma S/o Raj Kumar Sharma, Aged About 21
Years, R/0 House No. 21 Near Police Station Newai, Tonk
Rajasthan
4. Rajendra Kumar S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 25 Years,
R/0 Ward No. 2 Gokulpura, Sikar Rajasthan
5. Yashasvi S/o Mahesh Kumar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o C-
120 Rajeev Nagar Outside 3Rd Pole Mahamandir Jodhpur,
Rajasthan
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (9 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
6. Ritik Berwa S/o Hitender Kumar, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Village Ward No. 07, Near Pitar Ji Mandir, Suratgarh,
Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan At Present R/o B-425, Mahesh
Nagar, Jda Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan
7. Vivek Pratap Singh Rana S/o Mahendra Pratap Singh
Rana, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Foujdar Mohalla,
Karilpura, Dhoulpur Rajasthan
8. Devendra Singh Shekhawat S/o Surendra Singh
Shekhawat, Aged About 28 Years, R/0 Village Phariya,
Post Khandeola Dis. Khandar Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan
9. Raju Shera Bhati S/o Chaina Ram Bhati, Aged About 23
Years, R/0 Village Dawara Post Moolana Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar(Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8379/2023
1. Rinki Saini Daughter Of Shri Satyanarayan Saini, Aged
About 25 Years, Resident Of 75, Gangavihar Colony,
Behind Balaji Dharm Kanta, Haramara, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Kavita Saini Daughter Of Shri Sitaram Saini, Aged About
23 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 47 A Laxmi Nagar, Niwaru
Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Suryaveer Bhagaur Son Of Shri Sevaram Baghaur, Aged
About 24 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Vijaypura,
Tehsil Suroth, District Karauli (Raj.)
4. Rahul Singh Son Of Shri Nahar Singh, Aged About 28
Years, Resident Of Betal Mohalla, Nai Sadak, Deeg,
District Bharatpur (Raj.)
5. Sushma Kumari Daughter Of Shri Jawhar Lal, Aged About
31 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Amarsar Nayan,
Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (10 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8381/2023
1. Puspendra Kumar Son Of Shri Mohan Singh, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Kherli Gadasiya, Tehsil Bayana District
Bharatpur. (Raj)
2. Deeksha Agrawal D/o Naresh Agrawal, Aged About 28
Years, R/o C/o Chetan Bansal Near Escort Company,
Mandawar, Mahwa, District Dausa.
3. Sushil Dixit Son Of Shri Ganesh Bihari Dixit, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Village Kanjoli, Post Kanjoli Line Sewar,
District Bharatpur.
4. Mahesh Chand Son Of Shri Dayaram, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Village Karhi, Post Karhi Bharatpur, District
Bharatpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur, Bench Jaipur Through
Ragistrar General
2. Ragistrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8382/2023
1. Ajeet Singh Shishodiya S/o Balram Singh Shishodiya,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o VPO Samoochi, Tehsil
Kathumar, District Alwar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 280017).
2. Yogesh Sharma S/o Parkash Chandra Sharma, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o 175, Pashu Chikitsalya Ke Pass, Post
Office Mohalla, Laxmangarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
(Roll No. 607469)
3. Lokesh Rathore S/o Ram Kishan Rathore, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Near Laxmi Chand Mohta Bhawan, Teliwara
Chowk, Bikaner, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 655215)
4. Kishan Kachhawa S/o Chena Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Maliyon Ka Mohalla, Badli, Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Roll
No. 518107)
5. Shailesh Kumar S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Bithooja, Barmer, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 630345)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (11 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
6. Prakash Ram S/o Kumbha Ram Mali, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Levera Kalan, Tehsil Baori, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 488894)
7. Jagmohan Sharma S/o Manmohan Sharma, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Mahalaxmi Mandir Ke Pass, Usta Bari Ke
Ander, Bikaner, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 649103)
8. Uday Singh Soni S/o Sunil Kumar Soni, Aged About 20
Years, R/o Purohit Pada, Todabhim, District Karauli,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 764633)
9. Teekam Chand Kanwaria S/o Rajkumar Kanwaria, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Gali No. 9, Shivaji Colony, Newai,
District Tonk, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 897849)
10. Arpit Choudhary S/o Amar Singh Choudhary, Aged About
30 Years, R/o B Block, House No. 72, First Floor, Apna
Ghar, Shalimar Gate No. 3, Alwar, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
277883)
11. Vikram Charan S/o Jai Singh Charan, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Plot No. 215, Vidhya Nagar, Gali No. 6, Behind
Rto Office Bjs, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 483426).
12. Jugal Kishore S/o Raju Ram Gahalot, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Choak Ka Baas, Maliyon Ka Mohalla, Mertya
City, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 803829).
13. Ramswarup Saini S/o Kanhaiya Lal Saini, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Ranapara Pundeerpara, Mandawar, District
Dausa, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 429558)
14. Chetan Sharma S/o Hari Prakash Sharma, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Village Ukhali, Post Salawad, Tehsil Bakani,
District Jhalawar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 451389).
15. Sachin Katewa S/o Manoj Katewa, Aged About 26 Years,
Ro Village Katewa Ka Bas, Shyonathpura, Udaipurwati,
District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 460585).
16. Bharat Singh S/o Kheem Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Choudhariyo Ka Was, Harjeet, Tehsil Ahore, District
Jalore, Rajasthan. (Roll No.483716).
17. Praveen Kabara S/o Satya Narain Kabara, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Vpo Bharni, Tehsil Tonk, District Tonk,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 901286).
18. Haradev Ram S/o Khinya Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Maliyon Ki Dhani, Malawas, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (12 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
487651).
19. Surendra Khandotiya S/o Nanu Ram, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Village Indali, Post Kankariya, Tehsil Nawa,
District Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 844085)
20. Sudeesh Kumar Sharma S/o Prakash Chand Sharma,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Dalapura, Post Atewa,
Tehsil Karauli, District Karauli, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
713614).
21. Atul Trivedi S/o Bhagwan Sahay Sharma, Aged About 34
Years, R/o G-12, Tirupati Balaji Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 380910).
22. Kaushal Kumar Sharma S/o Khushiram Sharma, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Village Dalapura, Post Atewa, Tehsil
Karauli, District Karauli, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 496976).
23. Surbhi Saini D/o Yogesh Kumar Saini, Aged About 24
Years, R/o J-37, Sharma Colony, 22 Godam, Jaipur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 774572).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8383/2023
Prahlad Kumar Godawara S/o Kalyan Sahai Godawara, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o 53, Dula Singh Ki Dhani, Chomu, District
Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
The Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8384/2023
Praveen Singh Son Of Shri Radhey Shyam Singh, Aged About 28
Years, Resident Of Plot No. B-19, Goverdhan Puri, Galta Gate,
Jaipur (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (13 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
----Petitioner
Versus
Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8385/2023
1. Narendra Kumar Bansiwal S/o Ram Niwas Bansiwal, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o A 108 A Shyam Mitra Mandal Nagar,
Road No. 5 Vki Area, Murlipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. Mahesh Choudhary S/o Ramkishan Choudhary, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o- Jat Mohalla, Tehsil Peeplu Naner,
Tonk, Rajasthan
3. Sawar Mal Jat S/o Tulsi Ram Jat, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o- Narayanpura, Hameerpur, Tonk, Rajasthan
4. Himanshu Parihar S/o Brijesh Parihar, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Vedic Kanya School, Bagar Chowk, Inside
Nagori Gate, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
5. Kamalesh Kumar Kumawat S/o Mangal Chand Kumawat,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o- Ward No. 9, Dhani Ejarawali,
Vpo Alisar, Jaipur, Rajasthan
6. Deepak Tailor S/o Ramswarup Tailor, Aged About 30
Years, R/o- Rajeev Colony, Behind Lic Colony, Vaishali
Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan
7. Jitendra Kumar Rajoriya S/o Radheyshyam Kumawat,
Aged About 26 Years, R/o Jain Mandir Ke Pass,
Govindgarh, Tehsil Chomu, Jaipur, Rajasthan
8. Rekha Devi Thalor D/o Girdhari Thalor, Aged About 31
Years, R/o- Dhonkaliya, Nagaur, Rajasthan
9. Mohan Lal Haritwal S/o Jagdishprasad, Aged About 30
Years, R/o- 82, Panna Petel Ki Dhani, Kepadiyawas,
Jaipur, Rajasthan
10. Hans Raj Kumawat S/o Shriram Kumawat, Aged About 28
Years, R/o- Govindgarh, Tehsil Chomu, Jaipur, Rajasthan
11. Shivprasad Yadav S/o Shankar Lal Yadav, Aged About 24
Years, R/o- Khatodiya Ki Dhani, Baghawas, Jaipur,
Rajasthan
12. Govind Yadav S/o Sitaram Yadav, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o 101, Aheeron Ka Mohalla, Ramjipura Kalan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (14 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
13. Anjali D/o Rajesh Kushwaha, Aged About 27 Years, R/o-
H.no. 533, Gandhi Nagar, Near Railway Colony, Bharatpur,
Rajasthan
14. Sushmita Singh D/o Bhagwati Sharan Kushwah, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o- 533, Gandhi Nagar, Near Railway
Colony, Bharatpur, Rajasthan
15. Vinod Kumar S/o Patiram Dhaked, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Vill Bhopar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan
16. Pappu Ram S/o Pati Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o-
Bhoper, Post Muhari, Thesil Weir, Bharatpur, Rajasthan
17. Kiran Vishnoi D/o Ram Niwas Vishnoi, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Village Bhed, Nagaur, Rajasthan
18. Rinky Garg D/o Thakur Das Gupta, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o- Opposite Private Bus Stand, Near Ajay Hotel,
Karauli, Rajasthan
19. Pooja Sharma D/o Manju Dayal Sharma, Aged About 32
Years, R/o- In front Of Old Power House, Bharatpur,
Rajasthan
20. Vinita Tunwal D/o Satya Narayan Tunwal, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Opp-Ramawat Dharam Kanta, Near Tubewell,
Ramawat Nagar, Nawalgarh Road, Sikar, Rajasthan
21. Arun Kumar Dabariya S/o Dhanna Lal, Aged About 29
Years, R/o- VPO Mundiya Ramsar, Jhotwara, Jaipur,
Rajasthan
22. Kamlesh Kumar Dhakkarwal S/o Phool Chand
Dhakkarwal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o- Vill. Haru Ka Bas,
Post Deva Ka Bas, Via Badhal, Kishangarh Renwal, Jaipur,
Rajasthan
23. Satveer Nama S/o Vijay Kumar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
B86B Gandhi Colony, Pawanpuri, Bikaner, Rajasthan
24. Anuja Dewar D/o Pooran Chand, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o- Near Jagan Palace, Gandi Chowk Bheetar Bari,
Bayana, Bharatpur, Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through The Registrar
General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (15 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Jodhpur
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8386/2023
Robin Katriya S/o Shri Sardara Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Village Kaleri Dhani, Pakori Dhani, Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8387/2023
1. Khem Chand Saini S/o Mohan Lal Saini, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Ward No. 32, Naya Bas, Bandikui, District
Dausa, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 675380).
2. Suresh Kumar Saini S/o Mohan Lal Saini, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Ward No. 32, Naya Bas, Bandikui, District
Dausa, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 675379).
3. Suraj Prasad Saini S/o Mohan Lal Saini, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Ward No. 32, Naya Bas, Bandikui, District
Dausa, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 675378).
4. Ridhu Bala Ratnu D/o Berishal Singh Ratnu, Aged About
24 Years, R/o Village Charanwala, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 379198)
5. Shubham Jakhar S/o Hanuman Jakhar, Aged About 26
Years, R/o 31, Shiv Vihar Colony, Sambhar Lake, District
Jaipur Rajasthan. (Roll No. 407907)
6. Deepika Sharma D/o Hanuman Sahay Sharma, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o 155, Govind Vihar, Lalarpura,
Gandhipath West, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 409160)
7. Naveen Kumar S/o Devendra Kumar, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Vpo Tasai, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar,
Rajasthan (Roll No. 283335)
8. Abdul Raoof S/o Mahmood Ahmed, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Vpo Dhanuri, Tehsil Malsisar, Jhunjhunu (Roll No.
634192)
----Petitioners
Versus
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (16 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
1. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8389/2023
1. Kanchan Sain D/o Radhe Lal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Neem Da Gate Bharatpur Rajasthan
2. Preeti Kumari Garg D/o Suresh Chand Garg, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Vpo Kodyal Bonali Sawai Madhopur
Rajasthan
3. Mayur Singh Yadav S/o Ramawtar Yadav, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Dhani Manyawali Post Sirohi Tehsil Neem Ka
Thana, Sikar Rajasthan
4. Pawan Kumar Sharma S/o Rambabu Sharma, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Village Khedla Khurd Post Hingotiya Tehsil
Lawan Dausa Rajasthan
5. Hemant Bhati S/o Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Mohalla Badhadi Ward No. 23 Behror Near Old
Subji Mandi Alwar Rajasthan
6. Love Kumar S/o Ramesh Kumar, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o 687, Maharana Pratap Marg Gandi Colony Jaisalmer
Rajasthan
7. Vishal Prajapat S/o Kailash Chand Prajapat, Aged About
28 Years, R/o P.no. 141, Subhash Colony Bichoon Tehsil
Mozmabad District Jaipur Rajasthan
8. Sunil Paliwal S/o Dami Chand Paliwal, Aged About 26
Years, R/o P No. 144 A Sector 2 Adarsh Phalodi Jodhpur
Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur, Through Registrar General
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court
Jodhpur
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8390/2023
1. Amit Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Bhoodev Prasad Katara,
Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 45, Madhuvan
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (17 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Vatika Colony, Agar Road, Jaipur.
2. Vinod Sharma S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged
About 40 Years, Resident Of B-3, Hanuman Kunj Ke Pas
Balai Basti, Nahari Ka Naka, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8391/2023
1. Ronak Kumari Daughter Of Jagdish Prasad, Aged About
23 Years, R/o Chandrapura, Siryasar Kalan, Mandawa,
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan Roll No 457481
2. Shrimant Vaishnav Son Of Kalu Das Vaishnav, Aged About
27 Years, R/o 70 A-2 Bank Colony, Rai Ka Bagh, Jodhpur,
Roll No 485715
3. Harsvardhan Singh Son Of Rajendra Singh Rathore, Aged
About 21 Years, R/o 75 Rajiv Nagar A Gali No 2 Bjs
Jodhpur Rajasthan Roll No- 803274
4. Rakesh Rao Son Of Hukma Ram, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Gali No.1, Ashok Colony, Bhadwasiya, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan Roll No. - 481782
5. Ramesh Son Of Nimba Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Shiv Mandir Bhanwalo Ki Dhani, Ghewra Jodhpur, Roll No
796869
6. Deeksha Jangid D/o Dinesh Jangid, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Plot No 120 Parihar Nagar Guru Raja Ram Nagar II
Bhadwasiya Jodhpur, Roll No- 475169
7. Harsvardhan Singh Son Of Rajendra Singh Rathore, Aged
About 21 Years, R/o 75 Rajiv Nagar A Gali No 2 BJS
Jodhpur Rajasthan Roll No- 803274
8. Neha Bhati Daughter Of Moolchand Bhati, Aged About 28
Years, R/o H.No.-1/59,madhuban Housing Board, near
PNB Bank, Basni, Phase-1, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) Roll No-
794158
9. Dinesh Kumar Bishnoi Son Of Mahiram Bishnoi, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o - Bishnoiyo Ka Bas Olvi Jodhpur
Rajasthan Roll No - 791078
10. Sakshi Parihar Daughter Of Subhash Chandra Parihar,
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (18 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Aged About 20 Years, R/o Address- Pariharo Ka Bas,
Magra Punjla, Mandore Jodhpur, Roll Number - 813088
11. Manish Kumar Ranga Son Of Kuldeep Ranga, Aged About
31 Years, R/o 248, Rango Ki Gali, Lordiyan, Phalodi,
Jodhpur, Roll No 488825
12. Praveen Choudhury Son Of Babu Lal, Address-New Colony
Borunda Pipar City Jodhpur Rajasthan, Roll Number-
464653
13. Ramesh Son Of Shri Dana Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Sivro Ki Dhani Jatisara Denok Jodhpur, Rajasthan Roll No.
473146
14. Tanuj Parihar Son Of Shri Ramesh Chandra Parihar, R/o
Pariharo Ka Bass Magra Punjala Mandore Jodhpur 342304
Rajasthan. Roll Number-805531
15. Hanuman Singh S/o Raghunath Singh, R/o Behind
Mahadev Temple, Street No 3Rd, CHB Road, Sunthla
Jodhpur -342008, Roll No. -802476
16. Mahendra Jakhar Son Of Shri Mota Ram, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Baithwasiya Osian Jodhpur, Baithwasiya
Rajasthan, Roll No-794189
17. Vikram Singh Son Of Prahlad Singh, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o 146 Akhawato Ka Baas Khaber Purohitan, Luni,
Jodhpur, Roll No 800161
18. Shalini Yadav Daughter Of Shri Rameshwar Yadav, R/o
Pooja House Apartment Flat No 001, Patrkar Colony
Mansrowar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Roll No-736247
19. Chotilal Kumawat Son Of Shri Babu Lal Kumawat, Aged
About 35 Years, A-1 Heera Vihar Gopal Ji Ki Talai,
Sanganer, Jaipur Rajasthan. Roll No- 371708
20. Amit Choudhary Son Of Shri Parmanand, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Jajro Ka Bass, Ajmer Road, Dangawas, Nagaur,
Rajasthan Roll No- 799146
21. Krishan Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Shankar Lal Sharma,
Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Murlipura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan Roll No- 753285
22. Ranjeet Singh Bajiya Son Of Shri Harphool Singh Bajiya,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vill Thehat Po Roopgarh, Sikar,
Rajasthan Roll No- 548365
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (19 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
23. Abhishek Sharma Son Of Shri Ambesh Kumar Sharma,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o 36-F, Subhash Nagar East
Extension, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, Roll No- 317528
24. Rameshwar Panwar Son Of Shri Ghanshyam, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Loharo Ki Gali, Hadiya Kua, Sojat City, Pali,
Rajasthan Roll No- 525733
25. Akshay Soni Son Of Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 26
Years, R/o - VPO Sursura, Tehsil Roopangarh, Ajmer ,roll
No. 275507
26. Ankita Pareek Daughter Of Ashok Pareek, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Plot No 8,pawan Putra J Colony, Meenawala
Sarsi Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Roll No 370275
27. Rahul Purohit Son Of Baldev Purohit, Aged About 25
Years, R/o City Light Gali, Joshiwara, Kotegate, Bikaner,
Rajasthan Roll No. - 323702
28. Jitendra Yadav Son Of Shri Norang Lal Yadav, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Ward No 03 Station Road Ghoomchakkar,
Nawalgarh, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. Roll No- 780055
29. Gazal Midha Daughter Of Shri Radheshyam, Aged About
30 Years, R/o 15 L Block, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan, Roll
No- 887652
30. Mahendra Kumar Vaishnav Son Of Radhe Shyam Swami,
Aged About 33 Years, R/o Choudhary Ka Mohalla,
Chhitroly, Awaniya, Bagru, Jaipur, Rajasthan Roll No.
716643
31. Lokendra Kumar Son Of Ramchandra Prajapati, Aged
About 21 Years, R/o Padu Khurd Tehsil Riyan Bari,
Nagaur, Rajasthan Roll No. - 846282
32. Ashok Choudhary Son Of Hanuman Sahay Choudhary,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o Amarpura, Gohandi,
Madhorajpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan Roll No.- 408663
33. Hemraj Jangid Son Of Kanhaiya Lal Jangid, Aged About
34 Years, R/o Jain Mandir Ke Pas, Jangid Bhawan, Bagru,
Jaipur, Rajasthan, Roll No.- 429293
34. Satyanarayan Ramavat Son Of Kanhaiya Lal Ramavat,
Aged About 26 Years, R/o Behind Jain Pg College Road No
05 Gangashahar, Bikaner, Roll No 332099
35. Jaikaran Son Of Sumer Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Lohsana Chhota, Churu Pin Code 331029 (Raj.) Roll No
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (20 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
674344
36. Bhag Chand Sharma S/o Shri Laxman Prashad Sharma,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o-VPO-Neemla Tehsil Rajgarh
(Alwar), Roll Number-292339
37. Ramswarup Saini Son Of Kanhaiya Lal Saini, Aged About
34 Years, Address Village Ranapara Post Punderpada,
Tehsil Mandwar, District Dausa, Rajasthan Roll No 429558
38. Anop Patel Son Of Shri Dhanna Ram Patel, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Vill -Mandawas Teh. Rohat District, Pali
Rajasthan, Roll No.- 525102
39. Nitesh Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma,
Aged About 30 Years, R/o Patoda, Tehsil- Laxmangarh,
Sikar, Rajasthan Roll No.- 879776
40. Devendra Kumar Saini Son Of Lat. Manohar Lal, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Kalyan Ji Mandir Ke Pass, Gangapur
City District - Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthanroll No - 513334
41. Omprakash Son Of Rekhpal Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Ward No 6 Domra Thok Roneeja Nadbai Bharatpur
Rajasthan Roll Number - 745189
42. Antima Tanwar Daughter Of Ghanshyam Singh Tanwar,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o 7/194 Mukta Prasad Nagar,
Bikaner, Rajasthan Roll No.328084
43. Jaswant Son Of Mahendar Kumar, Aged About 24 Years,
VOP 8DBL Dabli Khurd, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan, Roll
No. 365850
44. Hansa Pareek Daughter Of Shri Shivraj Pareek, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o H.no. 788/65, Behind Send Anslam
School, Bhilwara, Rajasthan. Roll No-647945
45. Shyam Sunder Lodha S/o Duli Chand Lodha, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Village Bailas Post And Teh- Manohar Thana
District - Jhalawar Roll No - 450786
46. Vaishali Gautam Daughter Of Ramprakash Gautam, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o 35A Shri Ram Vihar Village- Mahal
Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan
47. Harish Chandra Son Of Laxman Singh, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Village Rajdhoki, Tijara Alwar Rajasthan Roll
No - 292391
48. Jaipal Son Of Mahila, Aged About 32 Years, R/o VPO-
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (21 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Hantra, Nadbai, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, Roll No- 317047
49. Hemant Kumar Son Of Laxman Ram, Aged About 29
Years, R/o 25 Gargo Ka Bas Village Shekhawas Tahsil
Marwar Junction, Pali, Rajasthan Roll Number - 528467
50. Mohan Lal Moond Son Of Shivpal Singh Moond, Aged
About 21 Years, R/o Village-Baral, Teshil- Sikar, District
Sikar, Roll No- 877591
51. Subhash Kumar Prajapat Son Of Jagdish Prajapat, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Vill Nawalpura Morod Kalan, Alwar,
Rajasthan, Roll No- 288198
52. Piyush Kumar Gupta Son Of Anil Kumar Gupta, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Behind Rajgrish Hospital Sheetla
Colony, Hindaun City, Roll No- 367950
53. Ritu Singh Daughter Of Kaptan Singh, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Address - Village Nagla Khushyal Bharatpur,
Roll No. 314974
54. Sanjana Gormat Daughter Of Manna Lal, Aged About 27
Years, R/o New Shiv Nagar Colony Jawad Bypass Rk
Hospital Road Rajsamand Roll No-859467
55. Rajesh Singh Son Of Madan Singh, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o 52, Rajpurohiton Ka Bas Chatelaw, Pali, Rajasthan
Roll No 849192
56. Amit Choudhary Son Of Parmanand, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Jajro Ka Bass, Ajmer Road, Dangawas, Nagaur,
Roll No 799146
57. Irfan Khan Son Of Shri Abdul Jabbar, Aged About 33
Years, R/o H No 151, Near Virender Sindhi Ki Shop Ke
Pass, Ward No 30, Roopnagar, Hanumangarh Town,
Rajasthan., Roll No- 357179
58. Murari Lal Sharma Son Of Babu Lal Sharma, Aged About
38 Years, R/o Vill Gudha Surjan Amber Jaipur Rajasthan,
Roll No- 373216
59. Dharmsingh Choudhary Son Of Purushottam Choudhary,
Aged About 30 Years, Roll No- 777266
60. Jaishree Swami Son Of Prakash Swami, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Gajner Road Choukhunti Fatak, Bikaner,
Rajasthan, Roll No- 653194
61. Monu Kumari Daughter Of Rajveer Singh, Aged About 23
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (22 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Years, R/o VPO Binjawas Tehsil Rajgarh Churu Rajasthan,
Roll No 723620
62. Hansa Nitharwal Son Of Ladu Ram Nitharwal, Aged About
24 Years, R/o Village Charanwas, Post Harsoli, Teh
Kishangarh Renwal, Jaipur Rajasthan. Roll 433627
63. Sunita Mehariya Daughter Of Thana Ram, Aged About 23
Years, VPO Indawar, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur
(Rajasthan) Roll No. 815350
64. Manish Kumar Wadhwani Son Of Khushal Wadhwani,
Aged About 25 Years, R/o Kumharo Ki Chowki Kaptan
Sahab Ka Gher Tonk Rajasthan, Roll No- 574941
65. Ashwini Narawat S/o Hadmat Singh, Aged About 23
Years, V/P Sarwari Charnan Teh. Samdari, Barmer
Rajasthan. Roll No 305742
66. Manisha Bhoorani D/o Laxman Das Bhoorani, Aged About
24 Years, R/o Ward No 28 Anand Nagar Colony Khairthal,
Alwar, Rajasthan Roll No-292289
67. Sunil Singh Jadaon S/o Ram Prakash Singh, Aged About
30 Years, R/o 30, Rajput Basti Mijhoura, Sapotra, Karauli
Roll No.-820552
68. Dinesh Beniwal Son Of Shri Padama Ram, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Village-Piprali, Post-Lunwa, Tehsil-Nawa
District-Nagaur Rajasthan Pin-341509, Roll No-798463
69. Rajesh Kumar Jangir S/o Subesingh Jangir, Address - VPO
Kutubpura Badangarh, Chirawa, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
Dob - 04/07/1990, Roll No. - 786195
70. Mohd Asrar Hussain Son Of Shri Subrat Ali Qureshi, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o 313,baldev Nagar, Lane No.2,
Makarwali Road, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan, Roll
No-601079
71. Lokendra Kumar S/o Ramchandra Prajapati, Aged About
21 Years, R/o Vpo Padu Khurd Tehsil Riyan Bari, Nagaur,
Rajasthan. Roll No. - 846282
72. Kratika Soni Daughter Of Purushottam Mahawar, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o 3-L-13, Dadabari Extension, Kota
(Rajasthan) Roll Number- 829750
73. Kishore Sankhala Son Of Parmeshwar Lal, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Village -Budsu, Tehsil -Makrana, (Nagour) Roll
No. 799176
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (23 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
74. Kalpana Nagar Daughter Of Ramesh Chandra, Aged About
24 Years, Village Chitawa Thshil Khanpur Distic Jhalawar
Roll Number 778315
75. Shivani Rajawat, Daughter Of Shankar Singh Rajawat,
Aged About 23 Years, R/o - Village Post - Batoda, Tehsil-
Bamanwas, District, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan, Roll
Number - 865207
76. Pankaj Inaniyan Son Of Shree Anna Ram, Aged About 24
Years, Jato Ka Bas, Sankhwas, Nagaur, Rajasthan, Roll
No. 260899
77. Hemant Kumar Purohit S/o Pawan Kumar Purohit, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o A-211, Karni Nagar, Lalgarh, Bikaner,
Rajasthan, Roll No. 652673
78. Dharmendra Kumar Son Of Lalit Kumar, Aged About 30
Years, R/o 11 Near Kochar Hospital Purani Abadi, Sri
Ganganagar Rajasthan Roll Number -567306
79. Roshan Lal Son Of Kailash Chand, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o 413 Indra Colony Vistar Pali Rajasthan Roll Number
527411
80. Pradeep Kumar Son Of Ram Chandra, Aged About 26
Years, R/o VPO Nagla Mahaloni, Bayana, Rajasthan, Roll
No-638616
81. Shubham Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Prakash Narayan
Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Police Thana Road,
Chelapari Mohalla, Rajgarh(Alwar) Roll Number- 608439
82. Parmandra Singh Chundawat S/o Veerpal Singh
Chundawat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o H.No. 4I5
Mahaveer Nagar Extension Kota Rajasthan. Roll No-
841856
83. Aditya Faujdar Son Of Madan Singh, Aged About 19
Years, R/o Nai Wala Thok, Reethauthi, Bharatpur,
Rajasthan, Roll No - 316512
84. Manish Kumar Son Of Madan Das Vaishnav, Aged About
28 Years, R/o 417/c Bapu Nagar Vistar, Pali, Rajasthan
Roll No. - 528586,
85. Gourav Kumawat Son Of Prahlad Kumawat, Aged About
27 Years, R/o 20 Shiv Colony Chhawni Choraha Jaipur
Road, Tonk, Rajasthan, Roll No - 896940
86. Azad Singh Son Of Hanuman Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (24 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
R/o Vrandavan Colony, Near Govt. Hospital, Behror, Alwar,
Rajasthan Roll No- 286371
87. Bhanu Pareek Daughter Of Pawan Kumar Pareek, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Near Ashapura Mata Mandir, Inside
Jassusar Gate, Bikaner, Rajasthan Roll No- 652667
88. Narayan Lal Jat Son Of Chanda Ram, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Bijarniya Ka Bas Bhaislana Kishangarh Renwal
Jaipur Rajasthan Roll No. 387202
89. Monika Bajdolia D/o Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 24
Years, R/o- VPO-Jabdi Nagar, Tehsil-Nawa District, Nagaur
Rajasthan Pin-341509, Roll No-846455
90. Monika Kumari Daughter Of Vinod Kumar, Aged About 23
Years, Village - Raghunathpura, Tehsil-Udaipurwati,
District - Jhunjhunu Rajasthan Roll No- 788248
91. Sunita Godara Daughter Of Shri Arjun Ram Godara, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Village Tanwara Teh.jayal Nagour
Rajasthan, Roll No 516305
92. Surendra Samriya Son Of Shri Sitaram Samriya, Aged
About 31 Years, Village- Yadav Colony, Daurai, Ajmer,
Rajasthan. Roll No.- 600599
93. Rakesh Kumar Khatik S/o Ram Chandra Khatik, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Nai Aabadi Raghunathpura
Chittorgarh Rajasthan Roll Number -667772
94. Ashwini Narawat S/o Hadmat Singh, Aged About 23
Years, V/P Sarwari Charnan Teh. Samdari, Barmer
Rajasthan. Roll No 305742
95. Jahnavi Daughter Of Sri Ramkumar, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Ward No.19 Aarya Samaj Chowk, Purani Abadi
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan, Roll No- 889430
96. Bhagirath S/o Shankara Ram, Aged About 27 Years,
Address Village Relon Ki Beri Post Udasar Teh.
Dorimanna, District Barmer Pin 344704, Roll Number
-633126
97. Ms. Monika Vijay Vargiya Daughter Of Shri Shambhu
Dayal Vijay Vargiya, Aged About 30 Years, R/o-
Kotkhawada, Chotabas, Kotkhawada, Jaipur, Rajasthan,
Roll No. - 751947
98. Bhanu Pareek Daughter Of Pawan Kumar Pareek, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Near Ashapura Mata Mandir , Inside
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (25 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Jassusar Gate, Bikaner, Rajasthan Roll No- 652667
99. Ashish Sharma, Son Of Chiranji Lal Sharma, Aged About
30 Years, R/o VPO - Kolahera, Teh- Narayanpur, Dist.
-Alwar(Raj.), Roll No. - 282629
100. Leena Chauhan Daughter Of Prem Kishore Chauhan, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Near Sitaram Colony Signal Bass,
Ward No. 17 Sujangarh, Churu, Rajasthan, Roll No. -
671282
101. Pawan Nagar Son Of Ramesh Chand Nagar, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Vill- Bamori Kalan, Tehsil- Mangrol, District
Baran, Rajasthan, Roll No.- 628108
102. Ramkishan Daroga Son Of Shri Laxman Daroga, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o Village- Sarsiya Charnan, Post-
Bharni Kalan, Block- Jahazpur, Distt-Bhilwara Rajasthan,
Roll No.- 321509
103. Rajat Kumar Mudgal Son Of Ram Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Gayatri Jyotish Anusandhan Kendra
14-A Jawahar Nagar Alwar, Roll No.-611392
104. Sumit Kumar Sewag S/o Jugal Kishor Sewag, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Near Satelite Hospital, Pareek Chowk,
Bikaner, Rajasthan Roll No- 331464
105. Abhishek Kumar Sharma Son Of Santosh Kumar Sharma,
Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 49 Sainik Nagar,
Gangapur City, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan Roll No.-
837105
106. Kishan Kumar Sharma Son Of Mahaveer Prasad Sharma,
Ward No.19 Punani Bank Ke Pass, Napasar, Bikaner, Roll
No- 334428
107. Manish Kumar Saini S/o Tuhi Ram Saini, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Ware House Road Near G.c.a Sr. Sec. School
Bayana (Bharatpur) Raj., Roll No. 642933
108. Avdhesh Kumar Son Of Shri Ramniwas, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Ward No-07, Village-Majari, Post-Pacheri
Chhoti, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Roll No-782637
109. Gopal Krishan Vyas Son Of Shyam Narayan Vyas, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o II F 93 Murlidhar Vyas Colony,
Bikaner, Rajasthan, Roll No. 659429
110. Bhawani Shankar Bissa S/o Shiv Shankar Bissa, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o Outside Jassusar Gate Near Pnb
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (26 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Bank, Bikaner, Rajasthan. Roll No 658948
111. Narayan Lal Kumawat Son Of Daya Ram Kumawat, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Vill Jeetawal Post Devri Dist
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. Roll No. 340534
112. Suresh Kumar Sinwar Son Of Bhairu Ram, Aged About 23
Years, R/o VPO Chhapra Deh Teh Jayal Dist Nagaur Roll
No 467438
113. Yogesh Saini Son Of Mangal Ram Saini, Aged About 23
Years, Vpo Sonkhar Teh. Kathumar Dis. Alwar Roll No.
294047
114. Naresh Sharma S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o Ward No. 5 Vill. Kesarisinghpura,
Mahalan,mojamabad, Dudu, Rajasthan. Roll No - 418066
115. Jitesh Rewani, S/o Rajkumar Rewani, Aged About 25
Years, R/o 8/41 Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Roll No.
722803
116. Adil Hussain Khan Son Of Mohammad Yusuf Khan, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Kirdoli, Tehsil Dhodh, Sikar
Rajasthan, Pincode 332041. Roll No. 866778
117. Rajnish Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Sheduram Yadav, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o- Dhani Uplisethawali Nathawala
Shahpura Jaipur Rajasthan Pin Code -303103 Roll No
-754535
118. Chandra Kanta Daughter Of Shri Sukh Ram Inaniya, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Jodhawato Ka Bas , Inana Teh
Mundwa, Nagaur, Rajasthan, Roll No.- 601192
119. Naresh Dhakar S/o Manna Lal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
- Dhakad Mohalla Village - Talav Teh.- Pipalda Dist.- Kota,
Rajasthan Pin Code- 325009,roll No. - 515148
120. Surjeet Kumar Son Of Shri Ramswaroop, Aged About 39
Years, Ward No. 4, Galar, Churu, Rajasthan Roll No-
672665
121. Vinay Kumar Sharma Son Of Subhash Chand Sharma,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village -Naredi, Post- Jindoli,
Tehsil - Mundawar, Dist.- Alwar Roll No. - 618381
122. Ambika Daughter Of Mahedra Singh, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Vpo Ludniya Bara Post Kalwas Taranagar Churu
Rajasthan Roll No-347878
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (27 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
123. Pradeep Singh Son Of Kripal Singh, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Govind Nagar Chittor Road Circle, Bundi, Rajasthan,
Roll No- 338781
124. Pooja Jhamb Daughter Of Kishan Lal Jhamb, Aged About
38 Years, House No. 2 K 16 Mahaveer Nagar Third Kota,
Roll No. 512431
125. Sanjay Yadav Son Of Shri Ratan Lal Yadav, Aged About 25
Years, R/o-Vpo-Thana Rajaji, Rajgarh(Alwar) Rajasthan,
Roll Number-614625
126. Mohammad Asif Son Of Anwar Hussain, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Majviyo Ka Mohalla Naya Shahar Kishangarh
Ajmer Rajasthan Roll No 260948
127. Shyam Upadhyay Son Of Shree Surendra Upadhyay, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Vill- Neem Dada Rajakhera Dholpur
Rajsthan (328025) Roll No - 681843
128. Pradeep Singh Son Of Shri Mukund Singh, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Vpo Majhau, Udaipurwati, Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan Roll No 461257
129. Anita Jat Daughter Of Ram Chandra Jat, Aged About 28
Years, Add. Puwalo Ki Dhani Phagi Jaipur Roll. Num.
724674
130. Abhishek Sharma Son Of Ambesh Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 28 Years, 36-F, Subhash Nagar East Extension,
Bhilwara ,roll Num - 317528
131. Ranjeet Singh Bajiya, Son Of Harphool Singh Bajiya, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Vill Thehat PO Roopgarh, Sikar,
Rajasthan Roll No 548365
132. Ramavtar Bairwa Son Of Shankar Lal Bairwa, Aged About
34 Years, R/o-Vill-Sawa Ka Bas Teh-Phagi Jaipur, Roll No.
752115
133. Murli Dhar Swami Son Of Parmeshwar Swami, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Laidi, Laid Nagaur, Rajasthan Roll No
799189
134. Chain Bharati Son Of Vishan Bharti, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Sanwarda, Samdari, Barmer, Rajasthan Roll No.-
634234
135. Heena Jagyassi Daughter Of Shri Ratan Lal Jagyassi,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o 128/55 Near Bad K Balaji,
Boraj Foy Sagar Road, Ajmer. Roll Number 597037
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (28 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
136. Sushil Kumar Son Of Shankar Lal, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Ward No. 9, 3 Hlm, Jorawarpura, Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan, Roll No.- 690583
137. Abhishek Kumar Sharma Son Of Santosh Kumar Sharma,
Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 49 Sainik Nagar,
Gangapur City, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan Roll No. -
837105
138. Asraf Son Of Anwar Ali, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Pajabgiran Mohalla Bikaner Rajasthan 334001, Roll
Number - 322551
139. Deeksha Singh Daughter Of Vijay Singh, Aged About 28
Years, R/o B 502 Southend Homes Neelkanth Apartment
Opp. Gyan Vihar University Jagatpura, Jaipur, Roll No.
771903
140. Narendra Kumar Mehra Son Of Shiv Ratan Mehra, Aged
About 39 Years, R/o Baba Ramdev Mandir Wali Gali,
Behind Nagar Nigam, Bikaner, Roll No- 658913
141. Mahesh Godara Son Of Jagdeesh Godara, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Vpo-Dhannasar, Rawatsar Hanumanjarh
Rollno. 362802
142. Ankit Yadav Son Of Ramprasad Yadav, Aged About 23
Years, Koshiya Ki Dhani, Dadiya Urf Narsingpura
Sanganer, Jaipur, Roll No- 728874
143. Sanju Devi Jat Daughter Of Babulal Jat, Aged About 26
Years, Hindas Kalan, Hindas Kalan, Nagour, Rajasthan Roll
No- 464794
144. Murli Dhar Swami Son Of Parmeshwar Swami, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Laidi, Nagaur, Roll No 79918
145. Anand Prakash Bhargav Son Of Ram Niwas Bhargav, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o P.43 Sanjay Colony, Nagaur, Roll No.
804586
146. Sanwar Mal Dhayal Son Of Ramniwas Dhayal, Aged About
25 Years, R/o VPO Mundota Kalwar, Teh Amer, Jaipur,
Rajasthan, Roll No. 740196
147. Sarswati Ramawat Daughter Of Kanhaiyalal Sadh, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Aypa Mandir K Pass Shahid Bhagat
Singh Coloney Shivbadi Bikaner Rollno. 332123
148. Krishan Kumar Sharma Son Of Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged
About 26 Years, Village Murlipura, Tehsil- Sanganer, Post-
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (29 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Danti, District-Jaipur, Roll No- 753285
149. Anand Prakash Bhargav Son Of Ram Niwas Bhargav, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o P.43 Sanjay Colony, Nagaur, Roll No.
804586
150. Rohit Upman Son Of Mahesh Chand Sharma, Aged About
31 Years, R/o 219 Laadli Kunj Near Milan Garden
Marriage Home, Aniruddh Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan,
Roll No. 316966
151. Kamal Vaishnav Son Of Meghraj Vaishnav, Aged About 33
Years, Ward No 20, Chandresal, Kota, Tehsil Ladpura,
District Kota - Rajasthan, Roll No - 515566
152. Ramprasad S/o Khetaram Sad, Aged About 35 Years,
Village Sonely Tehsil Jayal Dist Nagaur Roll No-487598
153. Mahesh Chand Sahu Son Of Shri Laxman Singh, Aged
About 32 Years, Add- Mohalla Akhepura Thakar Wala
Kuen Ke Pass, Alwar, Rajasthan, Roll No -292389
154. Rakesh Kumar Khatik S/o Ram Chandra Khatik, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Nai Aabadi Raghunathpura
Chittorgarh Rajasthan Roll Number -667772
155. Balveer Singh S/o Ram Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
1/80 Vivekanand Nagar Sonawa Alwar. Roll No 611679.
156. Praveen Choudhury Son Of Babu Lal, Address- New
Colony Borunda Pipar City Jodhpur Rajasthan, Roll
Number - 464653
157. Amit Verma Son Of Shri Hari Lal Verma, Aged About 34
Years, R/o 189, Power House Ka Rasta, Ward No. 3,
Keshoraipatan, Bundi, Rajasthan Roll No-337723
158. Rajesh Kumar Jangir S/o Subesingh Jangir, Address - VPO
Kutubpura Badangarh, Chirawa, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
Dob - 04/07/1990, Roll No. 786195
159. Gazal Midha Daughter Of Shri Radheshyam, Aged About
30 Years, R/o 15 L Block, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan, Roll
No- 887652
160. Sangeeta Kumari D/o Satya Narayan, Aged About 29
Years, Residence- Village And Post Bhagwanpura, Tahsil-
Khanpur, District - Jhalawar Rajasthan Pin Code-326038
Roll No.-778826
161. Shubham Sharma Son Of Shree Satish Sharma, Aged
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (30 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
About 24 Years, Add-Village-Goth Post Surer Tehsil
Rajgarh District Alwar Roll. No. 616105
162. Simran Godara Daughter Of Shri Shakti Ranjan Godara,
Aged About 25 Years, R/o VPO. 2 RKM Kundal, New
Gharsana, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan, Roll No- 892028
163. Rakesh Kumar Khatik S/o Ram Chandra Khatik, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Nai Aabadi Raghunathpura
Chittorgarh Rajasthan Roll Number -667772
164. Govind Gahlot Son Of Rajkumar Gahlot, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Baba Ramdev Road, Sujandesar, Gangashahar,
Bikaner, Rajasthan Roll No. 654790
165. Radha Daughter Of Ramkumar, Aged About 24 Years,
Ward No.13, Village Nyolakhi, Tehsil Rawatsar,
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan Roll No. 688221
166. Sangeeta Kumari D/o Satya Narayan, Aged About 29
Years, Residence- Village And Post Bhagwanpura Tahsil-
Khanpur, District - Jhalawar Rajasthan Pin Code-326038
Roll No.-778826
167. Ajay Bharti Son Of Ramratan Bharti, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Gurja Karimpur Ka Pura, Sainpau, Dholpur
Rajasthan, Roll No - 741724
168. Jitendra Kumar Son Of Shri Gobar Ram, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Arat Ka Jav, Siwana, Barmer (Rajasthan) Roll
No - 305435
169. Bheemsain Son Of Shri Jora Ram, Aged About 38 Years,
R/o Ward No.4 Sahjipura Dist.hanumangarh Rajasthan
Roll No.363675
170. Dhola Ram Son Of Poonama Ram, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Somardi Bherudi, Sedva, Barmer, Rajasthan, Roll No.-
631711
171. Pushpendra Medgal Son Of Om Prakash Medgal, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Mohalla Gadarpura Punch Mukhi
Hanuman Gali, Dholpur, Rajasthan, Roll No.- 680364
172. Bhawana Chauhan Daughter Of Sajeet Singh Chauhan,
Aged About 23 Years, R/o H.No. 442-A, South West Block,
Alwar, Rajasthan, Roll No.- 615396
173. Yogesh Sankhla Son Of Shri Om Prakash Sankhla, Aged
About 22 Years, R/o Near Bank Of India Kishangarh
Renwal, District -Jaipur, Rajasthan Roll No. 705465
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (31 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
174. Ramnivas Son Of Balu Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Village 3 E Chhoti, Tehsil Shri Ganganagar, City Shri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan Roll No. - 558327
175. Kundan Joshi Son Of Rajendra Joshi, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Ward No. 15 Nahargarh Road Bhanwargarh,
Baran, Rajasthan, Roll No 627363
176. Shahrukh Khan Son Of Nishar Ahmad, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Behind Rajasthan Patrika Office,
Amarsinghpura, Lodhi House, Bikaner, Rajasthan. Roll No-
651564
177. Shubham Sharma Son Of Satish Sharma, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Goth, Surer, Rajgarh, Alwar, Rajasthan Roll
No.- 61610
178. Parmeshwar Gahlot Son Of Shri Om Prakash Gahlot, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Sukh Sagar Himmat Nagar, Vill
Borunda, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Roll. No.- 797535
179. Rajpal Choudhary S/o Phoolchand Choudhary, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Hanumant Vihar-2Nd Mangyawas
Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Roll No. 709150
180. Chena Ram Dahiya S/o Rupa Ram Dahiya, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Kumhari Darwaja, Nagaur, Rajshthan, Roll No-
847243
181. Navdeep Kumar Choubay Son Of Dinesh Kumar Choubay,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o 533 Sahakari Samiti Ke Pass,
Dhikola, Shahpura, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, Roll No.- 319183
182. Aipal Son Of Mahilal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Hantra,
Nadbai, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, Roll No.-317047
183. Anand Prakash Bhargav Son Of Ram Niwas Bhargav, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o P.43 Sanjay Colony, Nagaur, Roll No.
804586
184. Bhag Chand Sharma Son Of Shri Laxman Prashad
Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Neemla, Rajgarh,
Alwar, Rajasthan Roll No.-292339 Jitendra Yadav Son Of
185. Norang Lal Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 03,
Station Road Ghoomchakkr Nawalgarh, Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan Roll No.-- 780055
186. Kesaram Son Of Anda Ram, Aged About 22 Years,
Khicharo Ki Dhani Prem Sager Bhala Sariya Jodhpur,
Rajasthan Roll- 462909
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (32 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
187. Chain Bharati Son Of Vishan Bharti, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Sanwarda, Samdari, Barmer, Rajasthan, Roll No.-
634234
188. Sushil Kumar Son Of Shankar Lal, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Ward No. 9, 3 Hlm,jorawarpura, Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan, Roll No.- 690583
189. Abhishek Kumar Sharma Son Of Santosh Kumar Sharma,
Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 49 Sainik Nagar,
Gangapur City, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan, Roll No. -
837105
190. Radha Daughter Of Shri Ramkumar, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Ward No. 13, Village Nyolakhi, Tehsil Rawatsar,
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan, Roll No.- 688221
191. Bhajan Singh Saini Son Of Prem Singh Saini, Aged About
24 Years, Adress- Mandir Wala Rampur Dhawai- Karauli,
Roll No.- 819323
192. Shorbh Napit Son Of Shri Mohan Lal Napit, Aged About 26
Years, R/o VPO-Dhoula, Via-Gathwari, Tehsil
Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Roll No- 694357
193. Mamta Kumari D/o Kistur Mal, Aged About 27 Years,
Adress- Lampuwa Reengus, Sikar, Rajasthan 332404,roll
Number 551544
194. Kanika Kalra D/o Shri Naresh Kumar Kalra, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Milki Moholla Near Purani Anaj Mandi,
Bhusawar Bharatpur, Roll No. - 635591
195. Sunita Sharma Daughter Of Ratan Lal Sharma, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Vpo- Satyun, Teh.-Taranagar, Churu,
Rajasthan, Roll No- 672821
196. Ajit Sharma Son Of Kailash Chand Sharma, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Ward No.12,near Madhav Vidhya
Mandirschool, Gothra, Khetri Nagar, Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan, Roll No.- 458127
197. Deepika Kanwar Daughter Of Rajpal Singh Khangarot,
Aged About 23 Years, P.No.-510 Tara Nagar-A Jhotwara
Jaipur, Rajasthan. Roll No.- 723059
198. Ramprasad S/o Khetaram Sad, Aged About 35 Years,
Village Sonely Tehsil Jayal Dist Nagaur Roll No 487598
Ramprasad S/o Khetaram Sad Aged About 35 Years
Village Sonely Tehsil Jayal Dist Nagaur Roll No 487598
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (33 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
199. Rohit Kumar S/o Hansraj, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo
3Ksd Sukhchainpura Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar, Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan Roll No 562827
200. Sultan Khokhar Son Of Uke Khan Khokhar, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Ahore Jalore Rajasthan, Roll No 815997
201. Bhawana Chauhan Daughter Of Sajeet Singh Chauhan,
Aged About 23 Years, R/o H.No. 442-A, South West Block,
Alwar, Rajasthan, Roll No.- 615396.
202. Girraj Saini Son Of Prahlad Ram Saini, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Khetaka Ki Dhani, Nai Mata Ke Pass, Amer
Jaipur Roll No -712947.
203. Iraphan Ali Son Of Shri Usman Mohd Teli, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Village Anandpur Kalu Jaitaran Pali (Raj) Roll
No 855261
204. Komal Shekhawat D/o Rajendra Singh, Aged About 27
Years, R/o 74/26 A Shipra Path Mansarovar, Jaipur Roll
No. 721182
205. Chetan Prajapati S/o Surya Prakash Balotiya, Aged About
28 Years, R/o 52A, Brizbadi Colony, Nangal Jaisa Bohara,
Jhotwara, Jaipur, Roll No .768153.
206. Manisha D/o Juglal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Ward No.
41 Maharaja Surajmal, Aavasiya Colony Sikar Roll No.
421537
207. Jyoti Yadav D/o Madan Lal Yadav, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Rani Sati Nagar, Jaipur Roll No 439387.
208. Banwari Sharma So Ramesh Chand Sharma, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Village Kanchanpura Naguar Roll No.
595398
209. Aslam Khan S/o Wali Khan, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Masjid Ki Dhani Jodhpur Roll Number 817323
210. Chela Ram S/o Gopal Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vpo
Cholu Khan Didwana Roll No. 519483
211. Mohit Kumawat S/o Kanhiya Lal Kumawat, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Bihari Marg Chejaro Ka Maholla Sikar Roll No.
429736
212. Lokesh Suthar S/o Leeladhar Suthar, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Gajner Road Chokuthi Bikaner R/o 333709
213. Vishal Parashar S/o Manoj Sharma, Aged About 27 Years,
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (34 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
R/o Nadia Mohalla Near Gola Kuan Bharatpur Rajasthan
Roll Number 634291
214. Himanshu Agarwal S/o Santosh Agarwal, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Thesil Kama District Bharatpur Roll No. 640591
215. Chandra Prakash Agarwal S/o Sohan Lal Agarwal, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Tehsil Khandela District Sikar Roll No.
878560
216. Jaspreet Singh S/o Asha Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Hanumangarh Roll No 357571
217. Manu Sharma S/o Vishnu Prasad Sharma, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Near Kankali Devi Temple, Bariyon Ki Gali,
Baripada, Karauli Rajasthan Roll No. 773999
218. Chetna Soni D/o Bhupesh Kumar Soni, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Shivaji Park Alwar Roll No 281463
219. Ravi Kumar Sharma S/o Naval Kishore Sharma, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Padampura Toda Bhim Karauli Roll
No. 818336
220. Monika Swami D/o Shyam Lal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Kalyan Bhumi Ke Pass Suratgarh Ganganagar Roll No.
892662
221. Akash Kumar Sharma S/o Deen Dayal Sharma, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Shik Colony Udaipura Roll No.
349985
222. Nikita Jangid D/o Prahlad Jangid, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Kudi Bhagtasni Housing Board Jodhpur Roll No.
800122
223. Naresh Kumar S/o Mahesh Dan, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Goodha Gaur Ji Jhunjunu Roll No. 459912
224. Shubham Verma S/o Ashok Verma, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Alwar Roll No. 278904
225. Nirmala Bhadu D/o Girdhari Ram Bhadu, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Ward No. 7, Gogamandi Ke Pass Sudsar
Bikaner Rajasthan. Roll No. 328227.
226. Deepak Sharma Son Of Shri Bhagwan Sahay, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Khawson Ka Mohalla Phagi Jaipur,
Rajasthan Roll No. 380452.
227. Mukesh Kumar Chayal S/o Murli Mohan Chyal, Aged
About 45 Years, R/o Plot No. 47, Ojha Ji Ka Bagh, Gandhi
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (35 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Nagar Mode Jaipur Roll No. 698671.
228. Mayank Chouhan S/o Shera Ram Chouhan, Aged About
29 Years, R/o G-679, Gandhi Nagar Jaipur, Rajasthan Roll
No. 599604.
229. Rishi Shekhawat S/o Shri Pramod Singh, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Vpo Mahanpur, Th- Bansur, District, Alwar
Rajasthan- 608476.
230. Hari Om Sharma S/o Shri Ram Bilas Sharma, Aged About
23 Years, R/o 36, Village Haripura, Post Sandera, Peeplu
Tonk Rajasthan- 898003.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur through Registrar General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8434/2023
1. Lalit Sharma S/o Nandlal Sharma, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o 2/21 Nagar Nigam Colony Amer Road Jaipur
Rajasthan
2. Ketan Singh S/o Kartar Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Village Jakhli Tehsil Nagaur Rajasthan.
3. Pushpa Rathore S/o Gokal Singh Rathore, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Mata Ji Bay Pass Rampurabasti, Bikaner
Rajasthan.
4. Abhinav Shankar Yagyanik S/o Akhil Shanker Nagar, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Nagar Mohalla Bhagwat Garh Sawai
Madhopur Rajasthan.
5. Surendra Prajapat S/o Laxman Prajapat, Aged About 22
Years, R/o 53-54 Shivpuri Colony Nar Airport Sanganer
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Hrithik Sharma S/o Ramavatar Sharma Hitender Kumar,
Aged About 24 Years, R/o Modi Mohalla Baswa, Dausa
Rajasthan.
7. Bharti Saini D/o Sadhuram Saini, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Ward No. 01 Saini Mohalla Kanwat Sikar Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (36 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
8. Ashish Patria S/o Sunil Kumar Patria, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Shitala Mata Mandir Ke Pass Gurjar Mohalla
Jahazpur Bhilwara Rajasthan.
9. Akash Kumar S/o Pooran Singh, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Shiv Mandir Ke Pass Brijnagar Bharatpur Rajasthan.
10. Mukul Jaiswal S/o Rajkumar Jaiswal, Aged About 24
Years, R/o 562 Gali No. 9 Rishi Galav Nagar Galta Gate
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
11. Yogesh S/o Pawan Kumar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o VPO
Chandgothi The Rajgarh Dist. Churu Rajasthan.
12. Mamta Sharma D/o Ramji Lal Sharma, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Gram Post Kunthada Khurd Jaipur Rajasthan.
13. Jitendra Singh S/o Girdhari Singh, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o 18E 344 Chopansani Housing Board Jodhpur
Rajasthan.
14. Ravi Choudhary S/o Babu Lal Choudhary, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Dhani Dhabawali VPO Chimanpura Shahpura
Jaipur Rajasthan.
15. Dinesh Kumar Badiwal S/o Kalu Ram Sharma, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Lokanda Ki Dhani Bagru Teh. Sanganer
Jaipur Rajasthan.
16. Navneet Kumar S/o Radhe Shyam, Aged About 21 Years,
R/o Vpo Kathumar Teh. Kathumar Alwar Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8435/2023
1. Vinod Choudhary Son Of Shri Phool Chand, Aged About
30 Years, Resident Of Dhani Teebawali, Village Nimera,
Post Jankipura, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar (Raj.) Roll
No. 869926
2. Anil Puri Son Of Shri Ramkalyan Puri, Aged About 34
Years, Resident Of D-411, Goverdhanpuri, Opposite
Surajpole Mandi, Galta Gate, Jaipur (Raj.) (Roll No.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (37 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
725768
3. Virendra Charan Son Of Shri Bheek Dan Charan, Aged
About 33 Years, Resident Of Paharganj 2Nd, Behind Water
Works, Lal Sagar Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) Roll No. 469243
4. Sachin Charan Son Of Shri Sajjan Singh Charan, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Rabriya, Post
Kishanpura, Tehsil Reni Station, District Pali (Raj.) Roll
No. 853692
5. Krishna Kant Dhanwaria Son Of Shri Govind Prasad
Sharma, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Dhandwara,
Bharatpur (Raj.) Roll No. 312541
----Petitioners
Versus
Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8436/2023
Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Bhairu Lal Sharma, Aged About
37 Years, R/o Nai Prajapat Mohalla Thadoli, Post Bagdoli, The.
Bonli, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8437/2023
Shelender Kumar Upadhyay S/o Shri Mangtilal Upadhyay, Aged
About 42 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 182, Banshipuri-Ist,
Jagatpura, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8438/2023
1. Ashish Kumar Sharma S/o Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Village Nagla Madhopur, Tehsil
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (38 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Kathumar, District Alwar. (Raj)
2. Kanika Chaturvedi D/o Ashok Kumar Sharma, Aged About
21 Years, R/o Village And Post Kundal, Tehsil And District
Dausa. (Raj)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur, Bench Jaipur Through
Registrar General
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8439/2023
1. Sahil Khan S/o Amjad Khan, R/o Pathan Pada, Bayana,
Bharatpur - 321401
2. Madan Mohan S/o Gopal Ram, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Sector
No. 1, Bayana, Bharatpur - 321401
3. Sonal Goyal D/o Jagdish Prasad Gupta, R/o Choukhandi
Pada, Bhusawar, Bharatpur - 321406
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Bench Jaipur Through
Registrar General
2. Registrar (Examination) Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8444/2023
1. Naresh Gurjar Son Of Choth Mal Gurjar, Aged About 37
Years, Resident Of A91, Shiv Shakti Nagar, Jagatpura
Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) 390402
2. Sumita Bhama Daughter Of Manish Kumar, Aged About
26 Years, Resident Of Jadiya Road, Naya Bass, Sujangarh,
Churu (Raj.) Roll Number 669375
3. Abrar Ahmad Julaha Son Of Sameem Mohammed Julaha,
Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Kayamkhani Mohalla,
Banera, Bhilwara (Raj.) Roll No. 647247
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Registrar
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (39 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8453/2023
1. Dharmendra Kumar Solanki S/o Umesh Chand Solanki,
Aged About 31 Years, R/o- 29 Ashok Watika, Behind
Power House, Jagatpura, Jaipur
2. Govind Saini S/o Jagdish Mali, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Maliyo Ki Dhani, Diggi Malpura, Diggi, Tonk, Rajasthan
3. Meghraj Choudhary S/o Hanuman Sahai Choudhary, R/o-
Kotho Ki Dhani, Vill Charanwala, Post Panwaliya, Thesil
Sanganaer, Jaipur, Rajasthan
4. Surya Prakash Sangwal S/o Devi Lal, Aged About 30
Years, R/o- Village 18 JRK VPO-Ayalki, Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan
5. Yajuvendra Singh Shekhawat S/o Mool Singh Shekhawat,
Aged About 30 Years, R/o- Vill Pthalpur, Via Ajeetgarh,
Thesil- Shreemadhopur, Sikar, Rajasthan
6. Rekha Choudhary D/o Sarvan Lal Choudhary, Aged About
23 Years, R/o Vill. Kanwar Ka Bas, Post Durjaniyawas, Via
Kalwar, Jaipur, Rajasthan
7. Kailash Sunda S/o Sharwan Sunda, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o- Village Deeppura Rajaji, Teh. Dhod, Deeppura Rajaji,
Sikar, Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through The Registrar
General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8454/2023
1. Vikash Saini S/o Nand Lal Saini, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Kala Kiwad Ki Dhani, Pili Ki Talai, Amer, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 699934).
2. Saurabh Yadav S/o Prithvi Raj Yadav, Aged About 24
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (40 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Years, R/o B-3, Hari Marg, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Roll No. 715119)
3. Shankar Lal Yadav S/o Madan Lal Yadav, Aged About 35
Years, R/o H. No. 18, Yadav Mohalla, Village Kesha Ka
Bas, Tehsil Kishangarh Renwal, District Karansar, Jaipur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 439398).
4. Suresh Sharma S/o Chauth Mal Sharma, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Plot No. 140, Azad Path, Sindhu Nagar,
Murlipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 387995).
5. Deepak Singh Ratnu S/o Madan Singh Ratnu, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Plot No. 56A, Sangam Colony, Bajrang
Nagar, Stc College, Vkia Road No. 14, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Roll No. 439689).
6. Harshay Sharma S/o Kailash Chand Sharma, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Bohara Ki Dhani, Pokhrsa Ka Bas, Jaipur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 423652).
7. Sakshi Bansal D/o Raman Lal Bansal, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Vpo Chhonkarwara Kalan, Tehsil Bhusawar,
District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 638934).
8. Nitin Kumar S/o Raman Lal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Vpo Chhonkarwara Kalan, Tehsil Bhusawar, District
Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 638913).
9. Rajkanwar Rajawat D/o Bhanwar Singh Rajpoot, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Rajpoot Mohalla, Nangal Rajawatan,
District Dausa, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 349225).
10. Ashish Kumar Mishra S/o Ashok Kumar Mishra, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Plot No. 99, Ward No. 21, Vaishali
Nagar, Chaksu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll
No.369994)
11. Divya Saini D/o Ramvatar Saini, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o 3601, Krishna Puri, Rakadi, Behind Laxmi Nagar,
Sodala, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 743313).
12. Maya Dhaka D/o Murlidhar Dhaka, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o Chapar Sahar Road, Jindrasar, Sujangarh, District
Churu, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 669930)
13. Mahesh Kumar Yadav S/o Mala Ram Yadav, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Village Udaipura, Post Govindpura, Via
Palsana, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar, Rajasthan. (Roll
No. 553778).
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (41 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
14. Sampat Jadam S/o Kailash Chand, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Maliyo Ka Mohalla, Bheruji Ka Bass, Merta City,
District Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 272146).
15. Anand Gora S/o G R Gora, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 1-A,
Adarsh Nagar, Kudi Bhagtasni, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Roll
No. 476029).
16. Saurabh Charan S/o Laxman Charan, Aged About 28
Years, R/o C-80, Saraswati Nagar, Basni First Phase,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 788859).
17. Upendra Sharma S/o Ram Prakash Sharma, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Village Nahcholi, Post Pipron, Tehsil Baseri,
District Dholpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 680933).
18. Ravi Kant Sharma S/o Kashi Nath Sharma, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village Bishangarh, Tehsil Shahpura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 430213).
19. Reena Sharma D/o Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Indraprastha Colony, Thana Road,
Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 720564).
20. Nisha Sharma D/o Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Indraprastha Colony, Thana Road,
Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 720565).
21. Pawan Kumar Sharma S/o Mangal Chand Sharma, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Village Hardattpura, Post Kishanpura,
Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 445097).
22. Rajesh Kumar Kumawat S/o Mohan Lal Kumawat, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o Teja Ji Ke Pass, Kachroda, Tehsil
Phulera, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 694060).
23. Rahul Pareek S/o Mukesh Kumar Pareek, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Pareeko Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 02, Kotri
Simarla, Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan. (Roll
No. 697334)
24. Amar Chand S/o Govind Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Railway Line Ke Pass, Rajas Govindi, Nawa City, District
Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 268750).
25. Pooja Saini D/o Bahadur Singh Saini, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Ward No. 6, Chachawali Dhani, Sanjay Nagar,
Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
375352).
26. Ajay Singh Rajput S/o Bhanwar Singh Rajput, Aged About
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (42 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
24 Years, R/o Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 349226).
27. Navin Kumar Saini S/o Krishan Murari Saini, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Village Mojpur, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District
Alwar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 291659).
28. Praveen Arora S/o Baldev Raj Arora, Aged About 25
Years, R/o D-328, Siddharth Nagar, Behind Nwr, Malviya
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 376295).
29. Praveen Arora S/o Baldev Raj Arora, Aged About 25
Years, R/o D-328, Siddharth Nagar, Behind Nwr, Malviya
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 376295).
30. Brijraj Singh Sandu S/o Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Naya Darwaja Ke Bahar, Banakal Mata Mandir
Ke Pass, Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 802519).
31. Gourav Jangid S/o Manohar Lal, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o H-6, Seetaram Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
(Roll No. 792125).
32. Vishakha Solanki D/o Pankaj Solanki, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Rai Ka Bagh, Bidiyad, Parbatsar, District
Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 590044).
33. Amit Singh S/o Vijay Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 13,
Shahjadpur, Alwar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 620751).
34. Mohd. Asif S/o Mukhtar Ahmed, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Inside Asan Pole, Udaymandir, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Roll
No. 794498).
35. Maya Kanwar D/o Indra Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Ward No. 23, Kudratiya Colony, Phalodi, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 482074).
36. Digvijay Singh Rathore S/o Ratan Singh Rathore, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o 168, Rawala, Satawariya, Masuda,
District Ajmer, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 597151).
37. Puran Sharma S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Village Bithora Khurd, Tehsil Marwar Junction, District
Pali, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 849676).
38. Anju Kanwar D/o Chhitar Singh, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Vpo Badalwas, Sikar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 389134).
39. Bhasker Gautam S/o Hera Lal Gautam, Aged About 30
Years, R/o 7-B, Shyam Nagar, Compu, District Tonk,
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (43 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 573240).
40. Ramniwas Kirdoliya S/o Chandra Ram, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Chopda Ki Dhani, Vpo Joosri, Tehsil Makrana,
District Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 518030).
41. Shayam Lal S/o Hanuman Ram, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Khejarla Road, Kour Kua Ke Pass, Tilwasni, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 479831).
42. Damandeep Singh S/o Rajendra Singh, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Near City Post Office, New City Kishangarh,
Ajmer, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 592995).
43. Bharat Vyas S/o Rajendra Prasad, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Ram Mahal, Brahmpuri, Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
592880).
44. Bhagirath S/o Surja Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Ramnagar, Kaparada, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
814573).
45. Raja Ram Sharma S/o Sita Ram Sharma, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Vpo Bhawani, Via Andhi, Tehsil
Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
760332).
46. Krishna Kumar Singodia S/o Kanhaiya Lal Singodia, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Near Railway Gate No. 4, Chandbas,
Sujangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 429660).
47. Bhopal Singh S/o Nathu Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Tadana, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 775085).
48. Rajendra Kumar Prajapati S/o Radheshyam Prajapati,
Aged About 30 Years, R/o Near Bus Stand, Karwad, Kota,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 830152).
49. Vikas Sharma S/o Sita Ram Sharma, Aged About 34
Years, R/o 107-A, Mayank Vihar, Near Mahindra Motors,
Jaipur Road, Bikaner, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 659727).
50. Ajay Kumar Sauni S/o Baubee Sauni, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Vpo Barauli, Tehsil Sarmathura, District
Dholpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 353669).
51. Shubham Nagarwal S/o Anil Nagarwal, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Village Shyalawas Kalan, Post Kuti, Tehsil
Baswa, District Dausa, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 368131).
52. Swati Gupta D/o Prem Prakash Gupta, Aged About 36
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (44 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Years, R/o K-11, Jawahar Nagar, Ram Mandir Marg, Kota,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 829447).
53. Zeenat Parveen D/o Anwar Ahmed, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o C-564, Sanjay Nagar, Bhatta Basti, 90 Feet Road,
Bilal Masjid Ke Pass, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Roll No. 368295).
54. Manisha Bhoorani D/o Laxman Das Bhoorani, Aged About
23 Years, R/o Ward No. 28, Anand Nagar Colony,
Khairthal, District Alwar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 292289).
55. Dileep Kumar Mathoriya S/o Anil Kumar Mathoriya, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Kharanja Road, Kothi, Dholpur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 367977).
56. Yadram Yogi S/o Rambharosi Nath, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Village Mahmadpur, Post Babekhar, Tehsil Bhusawar,
District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 639065).
57. Manoj S/o Trilok Chand, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo
Relgaon, Tehsil Digod, District Kota, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
841403).
58. Ravindra Kashyap S/o Ramkishan Kashyap, Aged About
30 Years, R/o 101, Shree Dev Nagar, Charan Nadi, Benar
Road, Murlipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 738681).
59. Virendra Kashyap S/o Ramkishan Kashyap, Aged About
27 Years, R/o 101, Shri Dev Nagar, Charan Nadi, Benar
Road, Murlipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 738682).
60. Khet Singh Rathore S/o Malam Singh Rathore, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o 251 And 16 Keshav Vihar, Tilwariya,
Opposite Chopasni School, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
791186).
61. Sneh D/o Suresh Kumar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo
Rasgan, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar, Rajasthan. (Roll
No. 619608).
62. Ravindra Kumar Saini S/o Suresh Chand Saini, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Baroda Bank Ke Peeche, Bottom
Level, Lakheri, District Bundi, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
666053)
63. Rinky Kuntal D/o Lal Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Vpo Santrook, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 316052).
----Petitioners
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (45 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8455/2023
1. Balbir Kumar Swami S/o Kishori Lal Swami, Aged About
23 Years, R/o Vpo Mandela Bara, Tehsil Fatehpur, District
Sikar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 551540).
2. Shruti Midha D/o Surender Kumar Midha, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Ward No. 26, Behind Ramnath Kutiya,
Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
893981)
3. Ms. Megha Rawat D/o Rakesh Rawat, Aged About 25
Years, R/o 1071, Modiyon Ka Chowk, Jhalaniyo Ka Rasta,
Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 724064).
4. Kuldeep Sharma S/o Satya Narayan Sharma, Aged About
27 Years, R/o 151, New Colony, Mukundpura Road,
Bhankrota, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 750144).
5. Pramod Kumar Kharwas S/o Mohan Lal Kharwas, Aged
About 22 Years, R/o Dhani Kharwasa Ki, Mawanda Khurd,
District Sikar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 693951).
6. Sunil Kumar S/o Devilal Thori, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Village 71 Np, Post 68 NP, Rasinghnagar, District
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 561218).
7. Daya Krishan Sharma S/o Rajendra Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o Panchayat Samiti Ke Samne, New
Colony, Dausa, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 719686).
8. Gopal Das S/o Prabhu Das, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
School Ke Pechhe, Artiya, Rohat, District Pali, Rajasthan.
(Roll No. 852037).
9. Bhoj Raj Singh S/o Devi Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Ward No. 12, Near Pwd Rest House, Anupgarh, District
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 561187).
10. Simran Joshi D/o Jai Shankar Joshi, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o C-148, Murlidhar Vyas Colony, Near Water Tank,
Bikaner, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 330860)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (46 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
11. Pradhyumn Purohit S/o Pradeep Kumar, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Shivraj Kiradoo Lane, Dammani Chowk,
Bikaner, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 653036).
12. Dharmesh Vyas S/o Subhash Chander Vyas, Aged About
23 Years, R/o II-D, M.d.v. Colony, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
(Roll No. 659994)
13. Kalpesh Rao S/o Chandan Kumar Rao, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Soniyana Via Gangapur, District Bhilwara,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 318679).
14. Arun Kumar Carpenter S/o Rambabu, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Vpo Aktasa, Asnawar, District Jhalawar,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 778075).
15. Harphool Gurjar S/o Sagar Mal Gurjar, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Peepla, Tehsil Madhorajpura, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 747015).
16. Het Ram S/o Har Lal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o House
No. 160, Ward No.1, Sadul Ashahar, Sadul Shahar,
District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 563046).
17. Sunil Kumar S/o Surendra Kumar, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Village Matoria Wali Dhani, Tehsil Hanumangarh,
District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 894039).
18. Sandeep Singh S/o Banne Singh, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Kalyansar, Bidasar, District Churu, Rajasthan. (Roll
No. 343163).
19. Prabhat Sharma S/o Ramdatt Sharma, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Ward No. 13, Mohalla Nayabas, Rajakhera,
District Dholpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 732176).
20. Moktik Soni S/o Mukesh Soni, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Rajput Colony, Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 794494).
21. Gargi Nadheria D/o Ashok Kumar Nadheria, Aged About
25 Years, R/o 111, Scheme No. 4, Rajendra Nagar, Alwar,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 278695).
22. Ankit Mahala S/o Rajendra Singh, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Ward No.03, VPO Malsar, Tehsil And District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 782019).
23. Nand Kishor Mali S/o Ramniwas Mali, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Hammalo Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 13, Truck
Stand, Malpura, Tonk, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 900252).
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (47 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
24. Kamlesh D/o Ramswaroop, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vpo
Kulchander, Ward No.3, Tehsil Tibbi, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 689203).
25. Jitendra Choudhary S/o Panchu Lal, Aged About 21 Years,
R/o Jato Ka Mohalla, Village Mangalwada, Pos Sewa,
Tehsil Mauzmabad, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
707236).
26. Ankit Kumar Sharma S/o Bajrang Lal Sharma, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Village Dabla Bujurg, Tehsil Phagi,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 375825).
27. Komal Kanwar D/o Kailash Singh Shekhawat, Aged About
22 Years, R/o Plot No. 74, Deewan Nagar-6, Daulatpura
Road, Benar Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 424915).
28. Ugrasain S/o Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Chack 5Lm, Post 9Lm, Anupgarh, District Sriganganagar,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 890113).
29. Tarachand Saran S/o Ram Kumar Saran, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Vpo Sehala, Ratangarh, District Churu,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 672094).
30. Hitesh Kumar Vaishnav S/o Shyam Das, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Rana Chowk, Reodar, District Sirohi,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 883211).
31. Rohit Kumar S/o Ram Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Vpo Shishwara, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 729460).
32. Surendra Khandotiya S/o Nanu Ram, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Village Indali, Post Kankariya, Tehsil Nawa,
District Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 844085).
33. Urmila Sankhla D/o Maga Ram Sankhla, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Shiv Mandir, Kaliberi, Soorsagar, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 790220).
34. Naresh Kumar S/o Rughanath Ram, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Vpo Tajaniyon Ka Tala, Kaprau, Tehsil Chohtan,
District Barmer, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 632715).
35. Deepak Yadav S/o Ramesh Chand Yadav, Aged About 22
Years, R/o VPO Khohari, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 612868).
36. Chetan Singh Panwar S/o Mitthu Singh Panwar, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o VPO Banthali, Tehsil Dooni, District
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (48 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Tonk, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 576323).
37. Pramod Kumar Dhakar S/o Prakash Chand Dhakar, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Bheemganj, Distroct Tonk,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 897058).
38. Ram Kishor S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
P. No. 31, New Parihar Nagar, Bhadwasiya Road, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 467880).
39. Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/o Mool Chand Sharma, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o Basant Vihar Colony, Gupteshwar
Road, Dausa, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 696063).
40. Suman Prajapat D/o Bhagavana Ram Prajapat, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Aadsar Bass, Ward No. 20, Sri
Dungargarh, District Bikaner, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
325213).
41. Arjun Rayal S/o Panna Lal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
Ward No. 6, Charnawas, Post Mayapur, Tehsil Parbatsar,
District Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 590052).
42. Jyoti Choudhary D/o Ram Chandra Dhundhwal, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Plot No. 171, Sainik Basti, Nagaur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 593971).
43. Dinesh Kumar Saini S/o Kailash Chand Saini, Aged About
21 Years, R/o Vpo Geejgarh, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 423252).
44. Shahrukh Khan S/o Kamal Khan, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Vpo Pinan, Tehsil Reni, District Alwar, Rajasthan. (Roll
No. 290333).
45. Saurabh Kumar Yadav S/o Jagdish Prasad Yadav, Aged
About 21 Years, R/o Dhani Hemawali, Chariwali, Post
Godawas, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 549376).
46. Vikram Bhada S/o Rajendra Kumar Bhada, Aged About 29
Years, R/o House No. 8/206, Mukta Prasad Nagar,
Bikaner, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 654395).
47. Ravindra Singh Ladhana S/o Prahlad Singh Ladhana,
Aged About 21 Years, R/o Vpo Chomu Purohitan, Tehsil
Khandela, District Sikar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 870757).
48. Aman Kumar S/o Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Ward No. 01, 6 Sjm, Kundal Khajuwala, Bikaner,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 656105).
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (49 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
49. Bhom Singh S/o Kalu Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Rajputo Ki Dhani, Bara Kalan, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Roll
No. 485914).
50. Harpal Singh S/o Jagtar Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
2 Snm, Sri Nagar, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
330792).
51. Navratan Beniwal S/o Sohan Lal Raigar, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Indira Colony, Manoharpur, Tehsil Shahpura,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 761958).
52. Shubham Verma S/o Ashok Verma, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Mohalla Bhairu Thana, Behind Bhairu Mandir, Alwar,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 278904).
53. Sachin Sharma S/o Ashok Kumar Sharma, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Buddh Ki Haat, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
308057).
54. Kishan Singh S/o Shrawan Singh, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Purohito Ka Mohalla, Bansara, Nagaur, Rajasthan.
(Roll No. 848070).
55. Raju Ram S/o Nanu Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Post
Barwali, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 588105).
56. Neha Sharma D/o Ashok Kumar Sharma, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Budh Ki Haat, Bharatpur, (Roll No. 308056)
57. Santosh D/o Sukhdev Saran, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Vpo Singeer, Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 848554).
58. Choudhary Leela Devi D/o Babulal Choudhary, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Jhaldha Ki Dhani, Dhonkaliya,
Khokhar, Parbatsar, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
516575).
59. Shripal Kumawat S/o Lal Chand Kumawat, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Village Devmand, Post Peepla Madhorajpura,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 434214).
60. Vijay Purohit S/o Rameshwar Prasad, Aged About 29
Years, R/o 19/523, Chopasani Housing Board,
Nandanvan, Ward No. 16, South Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Roll
No. 806140).
61. Pankaj Pandey S/o Amar Chand Pandey, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Vpo Sironj, Tehsil Arain, District Ajmer,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 260542).
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (50 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
62. Naveen Kumar Saini S/o Roop Singh Saini, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Tata Kuan, Todabhim, District Karauli,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 746307).
63. Gunjan D/o Kartar Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o C/o
B 142, Jawahar Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
315093).
64. Anil Choudhary S/o Ramratan Choudhary, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Pacharo Ka Bass, VPO Jethana, Tehsil
Pisangan, District Ajmer, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 596526).
65. Bhagat Singh Gehlot S/o Narendra Kumar, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Gopi Ka Bera, Mandore, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
(Roll No. 795707).
66. Mohd. Umer Nayim S/o Mohd. Ramzan, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Mewliya Bad, Regaro Ka Mohalla, Makrana,
District Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 587144).
67. Asha Chopra D/o Rameshwar Chopra, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Village Jhirana, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk,
Rajasthan (Roll No.-899608)
68. Manmohan Sharma S/o Gopi Ram Sharma, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Village Birkadi, Gola Ka Bas, Rajgarh,
District Alwar (Roll No.285739)
69. Suman D/o Ram Dayal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo
Bhakri, Teh. Parbatsar, District Nagaur, Rajasthan (Roll
No. 594012)
70. Vijay Purohit S/o Rameshwar Purohit, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 19/523, Chopasani Housing Board,
Nandanvan, Ward No. 16, South Jodhpur, Rajasthan (Roll
No. 806140)
71. Rachna Kumari D/o Keshar Dev Sharma, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Jerthi, Sikar, Rajasthan (Roll No.
430595)
72. Lata Sharma D/o Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Shiv Shakti Nagar, Mahamandir, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan (Roll No. 790965)
73. Ratnesh Kumar S/o Ram Prasad, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Vpo Gandheli, Rawatsar, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan
(Roll No. 688487)
74. Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Laxmi Narayan Sharma, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Vill. Birkani, Gola Ka Bas, Tehsil
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (51 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Rajgarh, Distinct Alwar, Rajasthan (Roll No. 292504)
75. Subham Sharma S/o Suresh Chand Sharma, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Vpo Mansar Khedi, Teh. Bassi, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan (Roll No. 363272)
76. Gaurav Kumawat S/o Ram Gopal Kumawat, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Opposite Government School Behind Bagru
Tehsil Bagru, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 725368)
77. Vaishali Gautam D/o Ramprakash Gutam, Aged About 27
Years, R/o 35-A, Shri Ram Vihar, Village Mahal, Sanganer,
Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 741358).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8570/2023
1. Sita Ram Jat S/o Budharam Jat, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o A- 65, Friends Colony, Panchyawala, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan (Roll No. 386808).
2. Bhupendar Haritwal S/o Roodaram Haritwal, Aged About
31 Years, R/o 61, Ganesh Baba Ki Dhani, Kapadiyawas,
Post Durjaniyawas, Kalwar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Roll No. 746035).
3. Ram Raj Goliya S/o Ramdev, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Ramdev Goliya Khakharki, Merta City, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan.(Roll No 845907).
4. Mamta Kumari D/o Ram Pratap Swami, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Vpo- Mandela Bara, Teh- Fatehpur, District
Sikar, Rajasthan.(Roll No 728958).
5. Meenu Choudhary D/o Shiv Dayal Choudhary, Aged About
20 Years, R/o Madhorajpura, Teh- Madhorajpura, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan.(Roll No 755452).
6. Mukesh Kumar Palsaniya S/o Jai Ram Palsaniya, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Dhani Holi Wali, Ward No 18,
Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.(Roll No 419634).
7. Lokesh Giri S/o Manak Giri, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (52 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Dhibba Para Near Khandariyon Ki Masjid, District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.(Roll No 774887).
8. Ajay Kumar Sharma S/o Susheel Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Vpo Kamalpura, Teh- Toda Bhim,
District Karauli, Rajasthan. (Roll No 824358).
9. Pahpa Ram S/o Sahi Ram Jat, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Vill- Bhadan Ki Dhani, Post- Bhanuda, Teh- Ratan Garh,
District Churu, Rajasthan.(Roll No 673063).
10. Abdul Vahid Panwar S/o Mohammad Gaffar Panwar, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Behind Rajasthan Patrika Office
Mohalla Punjab Gitrab, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.(Roll
No 649604).
11. Saurabh Purohit S/o Giriraj Ratan Purohit, Aged About 20
Years, R/o Jhanwaro Ka Chowk, Kela Gali, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.(Roll No 328269).
12. Kiran Choudhary D/o Shri Ram Choudhary, Aged About
26 Years, R/o 56, Mangal Vihar, Gokulpura, Jhotwara,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan.(Roll No 877896).
13. Pawan Kumar Babal S/o Vidhdhar Babal, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Vill- Dhani Panne Singh, Post- Ratan Nagar,
The- And District Churu, Rajasthan.(Roll No 674943).
14. Himanshu Sharma S/o Ram Lal Sharma, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Anatpura, Thesil Bansur, District Alwar,
Rajasthan, (Roll No 613735).
15. Prakash Sahu S/o Ramawtar Shau, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o 8, Narayan Vihar, 1St Rampura Road, Sanganer,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan.(Roll No 731320).
16. Rahul Sharma S/o Megharaj Sharma, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Behind Krishi Upaj Mandi Basant Vihar, District
Sikar, Rajasthan.(Roll No 866719).
17. Monika D/o Rewant Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Rajputo Ka Mohalla, Alay, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Roll
No 807923).
18. Karamveer S/o Rool Mal Bagaria, aged about years, R/o
VPO- Keetpura, Nepawali, Teh- Neem Ka Thana, District
Sikar, Rajasthan.(Roll No 746437).
19. Manish Kumar Ranga S/o Kuldeep Ranga, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Kuldeep Ranga, Rango Ki Gali, Lordiyan,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.(Roll No 488825).
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (53 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
20. Abhishek Purohit S/o Yogesh Kumar Purohit, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Post Office Wali Gali, Mundhro Ka Chowk,
District Bikaner, Rajasthan. (Roll No 662045).
21. Rajesh Kumar S/o Rugnatha Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Vill- Sarnau, Teh- Sanchore, Dist- District Jalore,
Rajasthan.(Roll No 808293).
22. Pradeep Kumar S/o Virma Ram, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Vill- Sarnau, Teh- Sanchore, District Jalore,
Rasjasthan.(Roll No 817157).
23. Priyanka Soni D/o Satya Prakash Verma, Aged About 32
Years, R/o 112, Near Station Road, Timasiya, Baseri,
District Dholpur, Rajasthan.(Roll No 681537).
24. Survesh Kumari D/o Ramjeet, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Near Saraswati ITI College, Anirudh Nagar, District
Bharatpur, Rajasthan..
25. Prashant Nawal S/o Bhagchand Nawal, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Village- Bhudol, Vaya Gagwana, District Ajmer,
Rajasthan.(Roll No 263012).
26. Madhu Jat D/o Surgyan Jat, aged about 26 years, R/o
Village Mahachandpura, Post- Kothun, Teh- Chaksu,
District Jaipur, Rajsthan. (Roll No 767957).
27. Rajat S/o Udayveer Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Deeg Road, Bahaj, Deeg, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
(Roll No 643080).
28. Ajay Singh S/o Shelendra Singh, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Village Jatoli Rathman, Panchayat Samiti Sewar,
District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.(Roll No 641054).
29. Laxmi Narayan Suthar S/o Jaitha Ram Suthar, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Inside Vishwakarma Gate, Near Kali Mata
Temple, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.(Roll No 330941).
30. Ram Chandra Suthar S/o Jetha Ram Suthar, Aged About
21 Years, R/o Inside Vishwakarma Gate, Near Kali Mata
Temple, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.(Roll No 331228).
31. Sachin Ramawat S/o Rajesh Ramawat, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Near Chhabili Ghati Sewa Sadan Bhawan,
Inside Goga Gate, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.(Roll No.
654717).
32. Nabeel Hussain S/o Mohammad Iqbal, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Bikaji Ki Tekri Ke Piche, District Bikaner,
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (54 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Rajasthan.(Roll No 649619).
33. Kiran Sankhla D/o Durga Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Damawato Ka Mohalla, Merta City, Nagaur, Rajasthan.
(Roll No 267128).
34. Anil Gehlot S/o Radheshyam Gehlot, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Maliyon Ka Mohalla, Merta City, District
Nagaur, Rajasthan.(Roll No 802344).
35. Saurabh Agrawal S/o Gopal Lal Gupta, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Near Mahesh Talkies In Front Of Nehru Park,
Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
36. Manisha Kanwar Shekhawat D/o Dhan Singh Shekhawat,
Aged About 22 Years, R/o Hh-136, Rajput Colony, Malviya
Nagar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.(Roll No 393423).
37. Ramchandra Dara S/o Mula Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Vill- Genana, Post Ratau, Tehsil Ladnun, District
Nagaur, Rajasthan, Rajasthan.(Roll No.843853).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8611/2023
1. Bhogendra Singh S/o Nemi Chand, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Village Chak Birodi, Birodi Bari, Laxmangarh, District
Sikar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 868684).
2. Rajveer Singh S/o Richhpal Singh, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Jerthi, District Sikar, Rajasthan, (Roll No. 745460)
3. Ravi Kumar S/o Naresh Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Village Rajender Nagar, Post Dada Fatehpura, Tehsil
Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 779752).
4. Ashok Kumar S/o Sullar Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Village Raipur, Post Ranoth, Tehsil Mundawar, District
Alwar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 618691).
5. Ramavtar Sharma S/o Nanu Ram Sharma, Aged About 27
Years, R/o 18, Bhairav Nagar, Hatwara Road, Sodala,
Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 700499).
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (55 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
6. Sapna Choudhary D/o Vijay Singh Choudhary, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o H-19, Janta Colony, Mugaska, Alwar,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 620788).
7. Dinesh Choudhary S/o Lala Ram Choudhary, Aged About
23 Years, R/o Near Panchayat Bhawan, Daurai, Ajmer,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 274486).
8. Dipika Saini D/o Kishor Kumar Saini, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Ward No. 32, Jamat, Udaipurwati, District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 432220).
9. Pradeep Kumar S/o Aasa Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Ward No. 11, Molvi Bas, Dabli Rathan, Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 357150).
10. Dimpal D/o Main Pal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward No.
01, Mahrna, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 684042).
11. Sarvan Sharma S/o Radhe Shyam Sharma, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Village Daluwala, Renwal, Manji, Tehsil
Madhorajpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
716953).
12. Sharvan Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Mahadev Colony, Ward No. 22, Balotra, District
Barmer, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 303529).
13. Naresh Kumar Chairwal S/o Tulsi Ram Chairwal, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Bhim Colony, Barala Bass, Rajgarh,
District Alwar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 620196).
14. Lokendra Singh Parmar S/o Bhupendra Singh Parmar,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o Natani Mohalla, Deeg, District
Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 309762).
15. Mukesh Kumar S/o Pukh Raj, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Rajpurohito Ka Vas, Ajit, District Barmer, Rajasthan. (Roll
No. 631920).
16. Mahendra Singh S/o Chatar Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Veer Teja Colony, Manasar, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 471745).
17. Amit Kumar Nama S/o Rajendra Kumar Nama, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Shyam Colony, Near College Mode,
Kaladera, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 719464).
18. Rakesh Kumar Bavaliya S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Bavaliya Ki Dhani, Vpo Nimera, Tehsil
Khandela, District Sikar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 866912).
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (56 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
19. Karan Kumar Sohaniya S/o Raj Kumar Chhipa, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o 3236, Jai Lal Munshi Ka Rasta, Purani
Basti, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 718146).
20. Rajat Kumar Sharma S/o Chander Prakash Sharma, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o Jain Mandir Ke Pass, Jahazpur,
District Bhilwara, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 318683).
21. Devendra Kumar Saini S/o Babu Lal Saini, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Patayari Ki Dungari, Rajgarh, District Alwar,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 279377).
22. Manish Chhaba S/o Sukha Ram, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Village Chhabasar, VOP Palari Kallan, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 813468).
23. Priyanka Bhargav D/o Pavan Kumar Jyotishi, Aged About
22 Years, R/o Kishor Sadan, Near Sani Mandir, Paota,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 708550).
24. Padma Kachhawah D/o Ram Lal, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Rathori Kuwa, Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 804398).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8613/2023
Ramesh Saini S/o Bodu Ram Saini, Aged About 26 Years, R/o B-
71, Manglam City, Nahar Wali Dhani, Kalwar Road, Hathoj,
District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8622/2023
1. Krishan Lal Choudhary Son Of Shri Roop Narayan
Choudhary, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of
Syosinghpura, Basda, Tehsil Dudu, Mozamabad, District
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (57 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Arvind Singh Jhala Son Of Shri Mopat Singh Jhala, Aged
About 25 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Boyana Via
Khemli, Tehsil Mavli, District Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Suman Sharma Son Of Shri Ramswaroop Sharma, Aged
About 42 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 12, Pratap Nagar
Colony, Old Ramgarh, Old Moad, Ajmer Road, Jaipur
(Raj.)
4. Shubham Upadhyay Son Of Shri Gajendra Kumar
Upadhyay, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of 55-A,
Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara (Raj.)
5. Mahendra Didel Son Of Shri Bhoma Ram Didel, Aged
About 23 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Indawar,
Tehsil Medta City, District Nagaur (Raj.)
6. Sunil Kumar Bhadu Son Of Shri Mohan Ram, Aged About
23 Years, Resident Of Kurdayan, Nagaur (Raj.)
7. Danish Sharma Son Of Shri Anil Sharma, Aged About 31
Years, Resident Of A-7, Motro City, Padampur Road,
Ganganagar (Raj.)
8. Bharti Sain Daughter Of Shri Arun Kumar, Aged About 20
Years, Resident Of Byepass Road, Gali No. 5, Near Karni
Mata Mandir, Rampura Basti, Lalgarh, Bikaner (Raj.)
9. Arjun Sharma Son Of Shri Ratan Lal, Aged About 32
Years, Resident Of Village Udaliyawas, Tehsil Bilada,
District Jodhpur (Raj.)
10. Neeraj Parashar Son Of Shri Chhuttan Lal Sharma, Aged
About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Trishool, Tehsil
Todabhim, District Karauli (Raj.)
11. Bharat Singh Son Of Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 31
Years, Resident Of Village Thalunda, Post Anvaloj, Tehsil
And District Jalore (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8873/2023
1. Ms. Kalla Choudhary Daughter Of Shri Ramji Lal
Choudhary, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (58 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Akhepura, Tehsil Mozamabad, District Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Rashmi Kumawat Daughter Of Shri Satyanarayan
Kumawat, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Bag Ki
Dhani, Tehsil Kishangarh Renwal, District Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Deepak Kumar Son Of Shri Ramanand, Aged About 29
Years, Resident Of H. No.403, Sector No.-05, Nohar,
Hanumangarh(Raj.)
4. Suraj Prajapat Son Of Shri Jugal Kishore Prajapat, Aged
About 22 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 11, Kapren, District
Bundi (Raj).
5. Vijay Singh Tanvar Son Of Shri Bhagawan Singh Tanvar,
Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Village And Post
Barnala, Tehsil Bamanwas, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.)
6. Najim Husain Son Of Shri Mallu Khan, Aged About 25
Years, Resident Of Village Imlali Post Barodameo, Tehsil
Laxmangarh, District Alwar (Raj.)
7. Priyanka Daughter Of Shri Sugad Singh, Aged About 22
Years, Resident Of Village Lalpur, Post Unch, District
Bharatpur (Raj.)
8. Karan Verma Son Of Shri Nathmal, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident Of Village And Post Damboi Khurd, Via
Gachhipura, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8922/2023
1. Mohit Jaiman S/o Omprakash Jaiman, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Jain Mandir Mohalla, Mojpur, District Alwar,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 606994).
2. Akshaya Kumar Panwar S/o Jagdish Prasad Panwar, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Murti Mohalla, Ward No. 13, Jaimini
Aata Chakki Ke Pass, Balaji Temple, Gangapurcity, District
Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 510085).
3. Ritu D/o Om Prakash, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village 5
Ksd, Post Sukhchainpura, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 886027).
4. Khushboo Goyal D/o Hari Vallabh Goyal, Aged About 37
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (59 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Years, R/o Ashok Vihar, Kacholiya Road, Chomu, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 411516).
5. Brijesh Kumar Sharma S/o Vishnu Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o 198, Beejwar Naruka, Malakhera,
District Alwar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 621328).
6. Rahul Sharma S/o Lakhan Lal Sharma, Aged About 31
Years, R/o 27, Sita Vihar, Dadi Ka Phatak, Benar Road,
Jhotwara, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 433788).
7. Monika D/o Satvir Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward
No. 09, Village Garda, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 690424).
8. Gaurav Pareek S/o Subhash Chandra, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Brahampuri Mohalla, Ward No. 04, Dhod,
District Sikar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 878814).
9. Komal Gurjar D/o Ramdhan Gurjar, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Village Kolyana, Post Bhanpur Kalan, Tehsil
Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
732586).
10. Vaibhav Singh S/o Raj Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
323, Bharat Mata Ka Chowk, Near Post Office, Pachpadra,
District Barmer, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 632073).
11. Sachin Kumar Swarnkar S/o Vinod Kumar Swarnkar, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o 156, Arjun Nagar, Durgapura, Tonk
Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 773259).
12. Ghanshyam S/o Ramswaroop Bhati, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Dayalu Nagar, Bhatiyo Ki Dhani, Bagoriya,
Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
806970).
13. Naresh S/o Nemichand, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Chhipi
Mohalla, Khirni Ghat, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
635762).
14. Akash Goyal S/o Mukesh Goyal, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
New Jyoti Nagar, Near Amps School, Hindauncity, District
Karauli, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 817792).
15. Savitri Jat D/o Sita Ram Jat, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Vpo Ram Nagar, Tehsil Kotkhawda, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 759641).
16. Surendra Pareek S/o Om Prakash Pareek, Aged About 26
Years, R/o 7, Ward No. 7, Nagwa, Sikar, Rajasthan. (Roll
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (60 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
No. 869106).
17. Vishnu Chopra S/o Panchu Ram Chopra, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Village Ganwar Jatan, Post Dadiya, Tehsil
Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 707265).
18. Pushpendra Gupta S/o Ajay Kumar Gupta, Aged About 23
Years, R/o 1/314, Neb Vistar Yojna, Tuleda, Housing
Board, Alwar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 277613).
19. Sunil Soni S/o Suresh Kumar Soni, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Plot No. 11, Uday Nagar, Nadi Ka Phatak, Benar Road,
Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 767566).
20. Kuldeep Vijay S/o Nathu Lal Vijay, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Shri Kunj, Plot No. 11, Vikash Vihar Colony, Tonk,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 895997).
21. Sharul Pandey S/o Satish Chand Pandey, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Barpada, Bhusawar, District Bharatpur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 640738).
22. Divya Agrawal D/o Tulsi Ram Agrawal, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Pratap Nagar, Sec 08, Kumbha Marg,
Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No 770129).
23. Minakshi Kanwar D/o Shakti Singh, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Maliyon Ka Mohalla, Nawacity, Dist Nagaur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No 847644).
24. Nandkishor Rajpurohit S/o Prithvi Raj Rajpurohit, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Eye Hospital Road, Near Sardarshar
Sahar Road, Ward No 19, Aadsarbas, Sridungargarh, Dist
Bikaner, Rajasthan. (Roll No 653508)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8923/2023
1. Neha Sharma D/o Babu Lal Sharma, Aged About 26
Years, R/o 119, Sona Vihar, Opposite JS Fourwheel, Delhi
Road, Alwar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 279442).
2. Shukha Ram Garu S/o Dharma Ram Garu, Aged About 30
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (61 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Years, R/o Village Burdi, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 474746).
3. Archana Sharma D/o Hari Shanker Sharma, Aged About
36 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Rcp Colony, Shri Vijay Nagar,
District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 563269)
4. Harshit Sharma S/o Shyam Sundar Sharma, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Neem Da Gate, Aheer Mohalla, Bharatpur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 641588).
5. Mohit Gupta S/o Satyanarayan Gupta, Aged About 27
Years, R/o VPO Ghans, District Tonk, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
901425).
6. Jai Singh S/o Daya Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Village 24 Sd, PO Raghunathpura, Suratgarh, District
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 560835).
7. Navneet Sharma S/o Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Railway Colony, Lawa, Sardargarh, District
Rajsamand, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 860260).
8. Anand Singh Shekhawat S/o Bag Singh Shekhawat, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o VPO Dudhawa, Tehsil Dantaramgarh,
District Sikar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 375235).
9. Jagdeep Kumar Laata S/o Someshwar Laata, Aged About
27 Years, R/o VPO Babai, Tehsil Khetri, District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 786160).
10. Shyam Sunder Gehlot S/o Dharma Ram Gehlot, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Bhadwa Ki Dhani, Bhopalgarh,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 474747).
11. Khushwant Singh S/o Bhairu Singh, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o VPO Bisookallan, Tehsil Sheo, District Barmer,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 303395).
12. Surendra Singh S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o VP Dokwa, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.
(Roll No. 671252).
13. Tan Singh S/o Basti Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Balera, Tehsil And District Barmer, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
303246).
14. Rajnesh S/o Bhagirath Mal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Village Paniyo Ki Dhani, Post Bhagera, Via Jakhal, Tehsil
Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
454223).
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (62 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
15. Devendra Singh Bajiya S/o Shankar Lal Bajiya, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Radhakishan Pura, Ward No. 39,
Modi Kothi, District Sikar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 876691).
16. Ashok Kumar S/o Sant Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Ward No. 04, Vpo Manniwali, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 891482).
17. Babita Kumari D/o Asha Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Village Rukhasar, Post Kanwari, Tehsil Ratangarh, District
Churu, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 342718).
18. Sanjay Kumar Sharma S/o Rajendra Prasad Sharma,
Aged About 32 Years, R/o Teachers Colony, Gupteshwar
Road, Dausa, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 720546).
19. Manisha Saini D/o Gopal Lal Saini, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Near Bus Stand, Dhamana, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll
No. 403524).
20. Nagar Mal S/o Dyal Ram Mahala, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Ward No. 1, Vpo Neemera, Tehsil Khandela, District
Sikar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 396446).
21. Nitesh Kulhar S/o Ravinder Kulhar, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Devroad, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
744994).
22. Harshana Choudhary D/o Mangal Dev, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Vpo Siyara, Pipar City, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 791516).
23. Himanshi Jain D/o Babulal Jain, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Behind 20 Shops, Swastik Colony, Kherwara, District
Udaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 577697).
24. Shashi Verma D/o Someshwar Lal Verma, Aged About 27
Years, R/o D-39, Vidhan Sabha Nagar, Dholai,
Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 762218).
25. Arpit Maliwal S/o Lalit Maliwal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Near Old Government Girls School, Kunhari, Kota,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 513250).
26. Akshay Kumar Saini S/o Buddha Ram Saini, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Bawdi Walo Ki Dhani, Ward No. 30, Lalsot,
District Dausa, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 349476).
27. Vishal S/o Bhura Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ward
No. 13, Vpo Talwara Jheel, Tehsil Tibbi, Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 359292).
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (63 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
28. Deepak Mangal S/o Ghanshyam Mangal, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Sorti Bazar, City Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
(Roll No. 538983).
29. Naresh Kumar Sharma S/o Nathu Lal Sharma, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Village Jhajharwala, Post Sainthal,
District Dausa, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 702602).
30. Rohitash Kumar S/o Jaimal Ram, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Ward No.02, Vpo Bashir, District Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 363304).
31. Rajat Kumar Sharma S/o Rajendra Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Yashodhra Nagar, Gupteshwar Road,
Dausa, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 719641).
32. Rakesh Kumar Yadav S/o Sitaram Yadav, Aged About 22
Years, R/o VPO Chimanpura, Tehsil Shahpura, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 761439).
33. Sandeep Sharma S/o Om Prakash Sharma, Aged About
23 Years, R/o VPO Anandpura, Kuchamancity, District
Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 797717).
34. Vijendra Kumar Mali S/o Jagdish Prasad Mali, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Village Mubarak Nagar, Post Shop, Tehsil
Uniyara, District Tonk, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 573334).
35. Santosh Kumari D/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Ward No. 01, Village 23 Gb, Sri Vijay Nagar, District
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 884505).
36. Sonali Choudhary D/o Susheel Kumar Choudhary, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o 1-S-20, Stc Housing Board Colony,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 642594).
37. Vipul Jain S/o Jinendra Jain, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 3-
J-4, Dadabari Extension, Kota, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
510728).
38. Sugna Ram Saini S/o Hukma Ram, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Chotina Bera, Basni Cholawata, Bhopalgarh, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 481832).
39. Amisha Soni D/o Sunil Kumar Soni, Aged About 21 Years,
R/o Behind Soni Bhawan, Goredi Chancha, Degana,
District Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 848610).
40. Ravi Kumar Joliya S/o Prabhu Dayal Raigar, Aged About
20 Years, R/o Village Jhanoon, Bonli, District
Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 862369).
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (64 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
41. Mahendra Kumar Yogi S/o Shambhu Dayal Yogi, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Village Kalyanpura, Post Simlya,
Tehsil Digod, District Kota, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 838081).
42. Deepak Yadav S/o Ramesh Chand Yadav, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Dev Dungri, Mirja Bawadi Road, Prem Nagar
Colony, House No. 46, Madangan, Kishangarh, District
Ajmer, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 595432).
43. Manvendra Singh Nirwan S/o Jaswant Singh Nirwan, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o Mali Nagoriyon Ka Bass, Gali No. 1,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 483882).
44. Parbhu Dayal Sahu S/o Bhanwar Lal Sahu, Aged About 25
Years, R/o VPO Kuntasar, Shri Dungargarh, Bikaner,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 324868).
45. Rajani Bala D/o Dhanna Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 5
Ksb, PO Sukhchainpura, Raisinghnagar, District
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 561260).
46. Nikhil Malav S/o Mukesh Malav, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Dhakado Ka Mohalla, Khera Rasool Pur, Tehsil Ladpura,
District Kota, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 825873).
47. Trilok Chand Sharma S/o Ramesh Chand Sharma, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Patan, Tehsil Reni, District Alwar,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 612821).
48. Anil Sharma S/o Nand Lal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Ward No. 30, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
(Roll No. 685078).
49. Lokesh Saini S/o Kanhaiya Lal Saini, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Plot No. 10A, Goverdhan Colony, New
Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
429565).
50. Mukesh Divakar S/o Radheshyam, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Village Thandoli, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 802319).
51. Vishram Prajapat S/o Chitalmal Prajapat, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village Hingonia, Post Boothal, Tehsil Bassi,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan.(Roll No 390269)
52. Akshya Mishra S/o Narendra Kumar Mishra, Aged About
27 Years, R/o VPO Khirni, Tehsil Alaran Dungar, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan.(Roll No 826783)
53. Babita Sain D/o Jhangi Ram Punjabi, Aged About 32
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (65 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Years, R/o Ward No. 17, Swamiyon Ka Mohalla, Shri
Madhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.(Roll No 550005)
54. Hanuman Ram Choudhary S/o Dalu Ram Choudhary,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o Khusiya, Khusiya Panchota,
Nawa City, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.(Roll No 518401)
55. Ranveer Singh Rajawat S/o Mahendra Singh Rajawat,
Aged About 22 Years, R/o Manpur Gate, Manpur Chittora,
Renwal, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No 442082).
56. Ajruddin Khan S/o Sarphu Khan, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Behind Old Cinema, Near Badi Masjid, Nagori
Mohalla, Dausa, District Dausa, Rajasthan. (Roll No
678934)
57. Bhawana Sharma D/o Nemi Chand Sharma, Aged About
24 Years, R/o Barwali, Barwali, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No 796740)
58. Arvind Vishnoi S/o Jagdish Ram, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o 219, Janvron Ki Dhaniya, Vpojaislan, Phalodi, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No 483050)
59. Rohit Sharma S/o Subhash Chand Sharma, Aged About
27 Years, R/o D 658, Siddharth Nagar, Gator Road,
Jagatpura, Jaipur, District Jaipur, (Roll No. 762656).
60. Murari Kumawat S/o Mahesh Kumawat, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Ward No- 08 Kumharo Ka Mohalla Sikar,
Rajasthan. (Roll No 443322).
61. Sumitra D/o Sadram Bishnoi, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Arvind Vishnoi, 219, Jawaro Ki Dhani, Jaisla, Jodhpur, Dist
Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 808492).
62. Khushbu Tiwari D/o Girraj Prasad Tiwari, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Sainik Nagar College Road, Gangapur City,
District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan. (Roll No 536765).
63. Trilok Chand Sharma S/o Ramesh Chand Sharma, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o VPO Patan, Tehsil Reni, District
Alwar, Rajasthan. (Roll No 612821).
64. Pradeep Buraniya S/o Parsa Ram, Aged About 20 Years,
R/o Village Hatheli, Post Rabiyad, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No 590285).
65. Ummed Kumar Saini S/o Jagdish Prasad Saini, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Vpo Baharawanda Dhani Bad, Tehsil
Baharawanda, District Dausa, Rajasthan. (Roll No
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (66 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
351516).
66. Anand Singh Shekhawat S/o Surendra Singh Shekhawat,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o Shakti Vihar, Ward No. 16,
Near Airtel Office, Kotputli, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No
766015).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9026/2023
1. Ashish Swarankar S/o Shankar Soni, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Murti Walo Ke Samne, Gupteshwar Road,
Dausa, Rajasthan.
2. Muzeeb Ahmad S/o Iqramuddin, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o H.N. 1185, Khejdo Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Jitendra S/o Randheer Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Village Arauda Post Hantra Tehsil Nadbai, Bharatpur,
Rajasthan.
4. Himanshu Uppadhyay S/o Deendayal Uppadhyay, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o 85/680 Sector 08 Pratap Nagar
Sanganer, Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9371/2023
1. Saurav Kumar S/o Tejsingh Jat, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
VPO Jahangeerpur, Tehsil And District Karauli, Rajasthan.
(Roll No. 769648).
2. Anjali Sharma D/o Gopal Sharma, Aged About 25 Years,
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (67 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
R/o 66, Roop Nagar-II, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Roll No. 163013).
3. Ankita Bhargav D/o Subhash Bhargav, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Jalday Vibhag Karyalay Ke Samne, Paota,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 762496).
4. Kiran Sahu D/o Ganpat Sahu, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Near Bus Stand, Mozmabad, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Roll No. 398760).
5. Ramsukh S/o Hansraj Sinwar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Village Pichkarai Tibba, Post Pichkarai Tall, Tehsil Sardar
Shahar, District Churu, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 345556).
6. Ravindra Karwasara S/o Ramswaroop Karwasara, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Runjhawali Dhani, Nalot, Post Grah
Bhopji, Via Thoi, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan. (Roll
No. 874590).
7. Ajit Yadav S/o Mahesh Yadav, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Near Sbi, Udairamsar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan. (Roll
No. 334858).
8. Anurag S/o Mahesh Chand Saini, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Ramji Gate, Kaman, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
(Roll No. 316939).
9. Vikas Saini S/o Amarchand Saini, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Kutti Mohalla, Behind State Bank Of India, Kaman,
District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 307655).
10. Rakesh Kumar Saini S/o Gokul Chand Saini, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Dhani Maliyan, Post Dhani Gumansingh,
Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar, Rajasthan. Roll No.
546632).
11. Sonu Saini S/o Suraj Saini, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Khorki Road, Nagar, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Roll
No. 642200).
12. Atul Kumar Pareek S/o Gopal Pareek, Aged About 26
Years, R/o 126, Pareek Mohalla, Hajiwas, Post Gehunli,
Tehsil Kotri, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
319837).
13. Bharti Prajapat D/o Gopal Prajapat, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Adarsh Nagar, Didwana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
(Roll No. 519471).
14. Abhishek Sedawat S/o Vijay Kumar Sedawat, Aged About
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (68 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
25 Years, R/o Near Digambar Jain Temple, Ward No.1,
Brahampuri, Lakheri, District Bundi, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
666244).
15. Shahnawaz Khan S/o Sallaudeen Khan, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Behind Subhas Petrol Pump, Near Rk School,
Tilak Nagar, Bikaner, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 657422).
16. Ramshwarup Beniwal S/o Madan Lal Beniwal, Aged About
23 Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Ramsar, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
(Roll No. 334188).
17. Bharat Lal S/o Patiram Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
44/09, Krishna Apartment, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur,
Rajasthan. (Roll No. 708521).
18. Mahipal Singh Khangarot S/o Dashrath Singh Khangarot,
Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Dogra, Post Mozmabad,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 391436).
19. Mamta Goyal D/o Jagdeesh Prasad, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Ward No. 29, New Near Birmahan Dharmshala,
Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
168681).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9381/2023
1. Anuradha Charan D/o Sampat Singh, Aged About 20
Years, R/o Irniyon Kithani, Jhunjhun, Nawalgarh,
Rajasthan.
2. Rekha Sharma D/o Nand Lal Sharma, Aged About 27
Years, R/o 2/21, Nagar Nigam Colony, Amer Road, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Choutu Solanki S/o Raman Lal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Malion Ka Bass Phalodi, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (69 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9403/2023
1. Shubham Soni S/o Ghanshyam Singh Soni, Aged About
24 Years, R/o Mohalla Shikari Para, Near Munshi Bazar,
District Alwar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 285049).
2. Sohan Lal S/o Oma Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 27,
Bera Nagar, Pal, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 797886).
3. Suresh Kumar Jangu S/o Ram Singh, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village Bhainsawa Waya Karansar, Tehsil
Kishangarh Renwal, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No.
729399).
4. Sanjay Nagda S/o Om Prakash Nagda, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Village Lal Madri Nathdwara, Rajsamand,
District Rajsamand, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 859891).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9757/2023
Sonu Pradhan D/o Raju Pradhan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 91
Methon Ki Dhani, Chonp, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Through Its Registrar (General),
Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Principal Seat Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (70 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9971/2023
1. Ambika Rathore D/o Bishan Singh Rathore, Aged About
26 Years, R/o A-104, B Hastinapur, Karni Palace Road,
Panchayawala, Jaipur Rajasthan Roll. No. 385597
2. Aditya Jadoun S/o Rajesh Pal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
218/16, Near Pani Ki Tanki, Nasiya Colony, Gangapur City,
Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan Roll. No. 831523
3. Nikita Kumari Bagriya D/o Pramod Kumar Bagriya, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Tehsil Laxmangarh,
Yalsar, Rajasthan Roll. No. 870889
4. Shubham Balwada S/o Om Prakash Balwada, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Vill. Ismailpur, Post Jharoda, Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan Roll No. 780196
5. Sita D/o Rameshwar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vill.
Paliyas, Post Paliyas, Tehsil Degana, Nagaur, Rajasthan
Roll. No. 805899
6. Roshan Choudhary S/o Sedu Ram Choudhary, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Vill. Akhepura, Post Akhepura, Tehsil Amer,
Jaipur, Rajasthan Roll. No 751366
7. Dinesh Kumar Nagar S/o Sita Ram Nagar, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Vill. Umariya, Po Sarola Kalan, Tehsil Khanpur,
Sarola, Jhalawar, Rajasthan Roll No. 779245
8. Pradeep Kumar Sharma S/o Kailash Chandra Sharma,
Aged About 33 Years, R/o Vill. Jodhawas, Post- Bhangroli,
Tehsil Thanagazi, Alwar Rajasthan Roll No. 289961
9. Rekha Sharma D/o Kailash Chand Sharma, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Vill- Jodhawas, Post Bhangdoli, Tehsil-
Thanagazi, Alwar, Rajasthan Roll No. 289835
10. Asheesh Pal S/o Hari Singh Pal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Vpo Kikarwali, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan Roll No. 563287
11. Mahendra Kumar Saini S/o Jwala Prasad, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Ward No. 39, Near Sitla Mata Mandir, Gowsala
Road, Laxmangarh, Sikar, Rajasthan Roll No. 421562
12. Saroj Choudhary D/o Sharwan Lal Ghosliya, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Nadawali Dehra Jobner Phulera, Jaipur
Rajasthan Roll No. 754253
13. Nisha D/o Natthu Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ward
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (71 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
No. 9, 27 Mjd Chhapanwali, Sadulshahar, Sriganganagar
Roll No. 885392
14. Roop Kishor S/o Gumna Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
V/p- Khadeen The- Ramsar, Barmer, Rajasthan Roll No.
305707
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10121/2023
1. Suman Nodal D/o Arjun Lal Jat, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Village Nodolo Ki Dhani, Post Shardulpura, Via Phulera,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 368515).
2. Bholesh Garg S/o Kailash Chand Garg, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Patwa Mohalla, Patthar Ki Taal, Anah Gate,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan (Roll No. 314667)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10330/2023
Vikash Dudi S/o Dileep Singh Dudi, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident Of 102, Nikhil Nagar, Gemna Peer Road, Mdv Nagar,
Bikaner, Rajasthan, Currently Residing At E-796, Avadhpuri, Near
Ram Mandir, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302015
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Registrar
General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (72 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10366/2023
Ekta Jangir D/o Ramawtar Jangir, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
4/149, Housing Board, Jhunjhunu District-Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Through Its Registrar (General),
Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Principal Seat Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10653/2023
1. Mukesh Kumar Yadav S/o Banshidhar Yadav, Aged About
27 Years, R/o VPO Tigariya, Via Etawa, Bhopji, Tehsil-
Chomu, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Kalpesh Deora S/o Ishwar Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o 306, Rajput Vas, Village- Jaitpura, Sirohi, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Through Its Registrar (General),
Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Principal Seat Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Shovit Jhajharia Advocate.
Mr. Aditya Sharma Advocate.
Mr. Ankit Kumar Advocate
Mr. utkarsh Dubey Advocate
Mr. Ram Pratap Saini Advocate
Mr Aamir Khan Advocate
Mr. Giri Raj Rajoria Advocate
Mr. Gopesh Kumar Advocate
Ms. Anita Saini Advocate.
Mr. Vikas Jakhar Advocate
Mr. Ashish Nagarwal Advocate.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora Advocate with
Ms. Komal Kumari Giri Advocate.
Mr. Bajrang Sepat Advocate
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (73 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar Advocate.
Mr. Dikshant Jain Advocate with Mr.
Ashvini Raj Tanwar Advocate.
Mr. Pritam Singh Advocate
Mr. Abhinav Srivastava Advocate.
Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma Advocate.
Mr. Ajay Choudhary Advocate.
Mr. Nikhlesh Katara Advocate.
Mr. Sonu Kumar Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Keshav Kumar Agarwal Advocate.
Mr. Munesh Bhardwaj Advocate.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya Advocate.
Mr. Kuldeep Aswal Advocate.
Mr. Prakash Lamba Advocate.
Mr. Vivek Joshi Advocate.
Mr. Suresh Khileri Advocate.
Mr. Shivatma Kumar Tank Advocate.
Ms. Almas Khanam Advocate.
Ms. Neha Godara Advocate.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Ashish Sharma Advocate
Ms. Harshita Thakral Advocate.
Ms. Dhriti Laddha Advocate.
Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma
Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Judgment / Order
Reportable
18/09/2023
By the Court: (Per Manindra Mohan Shrivastava,J)
1. Heard.
2. This batch of writ petitions is being decided by this common order as they involve common issue for consideration in these writ petitions.
3. The issue which arises for consideration in this batch of writ petitions is whether candidates belonging to reserve category (vertical reservation), who at the first stage of selection of written examination, have obtained marks higher than the cut-off marks (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (74 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] arrived at for General category candidates are entitled under the law, to be included in the General/Open category list for the purpose of being short listed and called for next stage of selection, i.e., Efficiency Test/Typing Test.
4. For brevity and convenience, the facts stated in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7564/2023 (Rajat Yadav & Others Versus Rajasthan High Court & Another) are being referred.
5. Factual backdrop leading to filing of the instant writ petitions:-
5.1 An advertisement was issued on 05.08.2022 by the respondents inviting applications for appointment to the post of Junior Judicial Assistant/Clerk Grade-II in Rajasthan High Court as also Rajasthan State Judicial Academy and in the establishment of the District Courts in the State. The advertisement further stated that the process of recruitment includes selection for the post of Junior Assistant in Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, District Legal Services Authority, Taluka Legal Services Authority and Permanent Lok Adalat in the State. Reservation was also provided for reserve categories viz. Scheduled Caste (SC)/Scheduled Tribe (ST)/Other Backward Class (OBC), Most Backward Class (MBC)/Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) including horizontal reservation for various other categories. The advertisement provided for minimum academic qualification, fitness as also age wise eligibility.
5.2 The scheme and syllabus of the examination provided that a competitive examination shall be held to test the ability of the candidates, comprising of Written Test and Typewriting Test on (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (75 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] Computer. Note (i) to (v) under Clause 15 of the Advertisement provides for preparation of merit list.
5.3 The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions appeared in the written examination. Petitioners belong to various reserve categories like OBC (NCL), SC & EWS. The respondents issued result of successful candidates, who qualified for the second phase of examination, i.e., Typewriting Test on Computer vide result dated 01.05.2023.
5.4 As per this result, cut-off marks declared for different categories for Non-TSP area were as below:-
S.No. Category Cut-Off
Marks
01 General 196.3451
02 General (Widow) 135.0103
03 General (Divorcee) 158.7026
04 Scheduled Caste 202.4398
05 Scheduled Caste (Women) 200.0362
06 Scheduled Caste (Widow) 120.0437
07 Scheduled Caste (Divorcee) 166.5399
08 Scheduled Tribe 192.0553
09 Scheduled Tribe (Widow) 120.4113
10 Scheduled Tribe (Divorcee) 122.3075
11 Shariya Tribe 135.1360
12 Other Backward Class-NCL 230.4431
13 Other Backward Class-NCL (Women) 226.2512
14 Other Backward Class-NCL (Widow) 142.9102
15 Other Backward Class-NCL (Divorcee) 209.9972
16 More Backward Class-NCL 203.3569
17 More Backward Class-NCL (Women) 201.6867
18 More Backward Class-NCL (Widow) 139.8478
19 More Backward Class-NCL (Divorcee) 148.3763
20 Economically Weaker Sections 224.5384
21 Economically Weaker Sections(Widow) 150.6860
22 Economically Weaker Sections(Divorcee) 210.7884
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (76 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
5.5 The cut-off marks for various reserve categories like SC, OBC-NCL, MBC-NCL and EWS were higher than the cut-off marks provided for the General category.
5.6 At this stage, the petitioners in these writ petitions belonging to different categories, who secured more marks than the cut-off marks of the General category candidates, i.e., (196.3451), but less than the cut-off marks derived from their respective reserve category, could not find place in the short listing process in their own reserve category. As per Note (ii) under Clause 15 of the Advertisement, those candidates who secured minimum 45% marks and 40% marks in the case of SC/ST & persons with Benchmark Disabilities in the written test were eligible for appearing in the Typewriting Test on Computer, subject to the extent of five times the number of vacancies (category wise), but in the same range all those candidates who secured the same percentage of marks were to be included. Due to high cut-off marks for their respective categories, the petitioners, who belong to SC, OBC-NCL & EWS, could not secure a position in the process of shortlisting after the written examination result, being five times the number of vacancies for the particular category. Resultantly, these petitioners were ousted from the process of selection as they were not allowed to appear in the Typewriting Test on Computer, i.e., the next stage of examination. 5.7 As per Note (i) under Clause 15 of the Advertisement, merit list of successful candidates for selection shall be prepared on the basis of total aggregate marks obtained in the Written Test and Typewriting Test on Computer (Speed & Efficiency Test), subject to the condition that no candidate who fails to secure 50% in the (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (77 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] aggregate with at least 40% marks in the case of SC/ST & persons with Benchmark Disabilities and 45% marks in case of all other categories, in each test, at the competitive examination. 5.8 The petitioners, who belong to various reserve categories have, thus, approached this Court by filing this batch of writ petitions raising a common ground.
6. Submissions on behalf of the petitioners:-
6.1 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that under the statutory scheme of examination contained in Notification dated 05.12.2002, shortlisting after the written examination is to be done only on the basis of merit and not category wise. The rule does not postulate that after the written examination, category wise list is to be prepared for candidates belonging to reserve category and in the Open category to allow the candidates to appear in the next stage of examination, i.e., Typewriting Test. Therefore, it is contended that the respondents were obliged under the law to prepare a list of meritorious candidates on the basis of the marks obtained in the written examination irrespective of their category, being five times the total number of vacancies advertised by the respondents. All those candidates, so included through the shortlisting process, were to be subjected to Typewriting Test to be followed by merit list as per Clause (1) of Note under Clause 15 of the Advertisement.
Therefore, the prescription under Note (ii) of Clause 15 of the Advertisement providing for eligibility to appear in the Typewriting Test on Computer, being five times the total number of vacancies (category wise) is contrary to statutory prescription. The advertisement to the extent it provided for category wise (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (78 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] preparation of the list being contrary to rule is void and inoperative, and the entire exercise of the respondents in preparing the list being illegal, is liable to be interfered with. 6.2 The second submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that even if it is assumed that preparation of list of meritorious candidates (category wise) for the purpose of making candidate eligible to appear in the next stage of examination, i.e., Typewriting Test on Computer was permissible in law, the petitioners, reserve category candidates, who had secured more marks than the cut-off marks derived from Open category candidates were entitled to be placed in the Open category and afforded an opportunity to appear in the next stage of examination. He would submit that the petitioners have been excluded from the process of selection only because they belong to reserve category even though they have obtained marks higher than many General category candidates, if not all. The cut-off marks of General/Open category being 196.3451 means that the candidates in the General category, who secured marks upto 196.3451 were included through the shortlisting process being five times the number of vacancies in the open category. A reserve category candidate, who obtained marks higher than the General category, i.e., 196.3451, but less than cut-off marks for his own category, could not be ousted from the process of selection as that would result in ouster of more meritorious candidates irrespective of their category.
6.3 Further submission is that Open category is meant for all and a candidate belonging to reserve category, if more meritorious as compared to General category candidate, is entitled to be placed (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (79 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] in the Open category list and could not be denied such placement merely because he happens to be a candidate belonging to the reserve category. This amounts to discrimination and will result in violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the principle of migration as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney and Others Versus Union of India and Others, 1992 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 217, must be applied to ensure that more meritorious candidate, who belong to reserve category should be migrated to General/Open category merit list, if he has secured more marks than the last candidate in the General category. The action of the respondents in confining reserve category candidates to their own category, even if, they obtained marks higher than the General category offends the postulate of equality. Rules of reservation and preparation of list category wise are intended to ensure reservation to reserve category candidates, subject to they being otherwise eligible and securing minimum qualifying marks. Such rules of reservation cannot be operated to the prejudice of reserve category candidates in those cases where they are able to secure marks higher than the General category. Such an action not only offends the principle of affirmative action, but also the constitutional philosophy of reservation as embodied under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India.
6.4 In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Indra Sawhney and Others Versus Union of India and Others (Supra), Employees' State Insurance Corporation Versus Union of India & (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (80 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] Others, (2022) 11 Supreme Court Cases 392, Alka Ojha Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Another, (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 438, Richa Mishra Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Others, (2016) 4 Supreme Court Cases 179 & Pradeep Singh Dehal Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, Civil Appeal Nos.7211-7212 of 2019, decided on 17.09.2019 as also the Division Bench Judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Another Versus Nitin Kumar and Others, 2015 Supreme Court Cases Online Allahabad 8611, Division Bench Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Kishore Choudhary Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, Writ Petition No.542 of 2022 and other batch of Writ Petitions, decided on 07.04.2022.
7. Submissions on behalf of the respondents:-
7.1 Replying to the various grounds, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents would argue that the interpretation placed on provisions contained in Notification dated 05.12.2002 (Part of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002) is incorrect. He would submit that the provision cannot be read in isolation.
According to him, the scheme of appointment includes provision for reservation of post, therefore, while preparing merit list of the candidates, in order to ensure that the candidates belonging to reserve category are able to compete against the post reserved for their respective category, category wise preparation of list after written examination is necessary and that is implicit in the statutory scheme of the rules, which provides for shortlisting of candidate after the written examination upto the extent of fifteen (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (81 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] times to declare candidates eligible to appear in the Typewriting Test. He would submit that if that is not permitted, a common merit list, irrespective of category, five times the number of vacancies, may eventually exclude the reserve category candidates from the process of selection and there may be cases where only candidates belonging to General category are included. This would defeat the object and purpose of reservation. 7.2 The next submission of learned Senior Counsel for the respondents is that as category wise shortlisting after the written examination was implicit in the rule, the advertisement clearly provided for preparation of category wise list after the written examination to determine eligible candidates for the next stage of selection, i.e., Typewriting Test. Therefore, the prescription of category wise preparation of list after the written examination is not inconsistent with or contrary to the rules, nor against the constitutional scheme of reservation.
7.3 Further submission of learned Senior Counsel for the respondents is that the Note (i) to (v) under Clause 15 of the Advertisement clearly provided that after the written examination, subject to securing minimum qualifying marks, list of candidate eligible to appear in the Typewriting Test would be prepared category wise. The provision being unequivocal, the petitioners were fully aware that after the written examination, category wise preparation of the list would take place. Yet they accepted this scheme of examination and selection process with open eyes without any demeanor or protest. It is only when the results of the written examination were published showing category wise list of candidates, being five times the number of vacancies in each (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (82 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] category, the petitioners have challenged the process of selection. It is well settled that one who takes part in the process of selection without challenging the process of selection, later on, having remained unsuccessful, could not challenge the process of selection. Therefore, on this count alone any challenge to category wise preparation of the list must fail.
7.4 The next submission of learned Senior Counsel for the respondents is that the merit semantic argument raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is not applicable at this stage. He would submit that the principle propounded in the case of Indra Sawhney and Others Versus Union of India and Others (Supra), which has been followed in subsequent decisions become applicable when the occasion arises to include reserve category candidates, who are more meritorious than General category candidate at the time of preparation of the final merit list and not at an intermediary stage. He would submit that the candidate belonging to the reserve category cannot claim to be more meritorious than the General category candidate only on the basis of marks obtained by him in the written examination as it is only first stage of selection process in the Main Examination and is to be followed by Typewriting Test, which is required to be cleared by obtaining minimum qualifying marks separately assigned for Typing Test. As to who is meritorious would be clear only on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by the candidate in the written examination as well as in the Typewriting Test. He would submit that word "Merit' is required to be construed in a wider sense and cannot be confined to the marks obtained in the written examination. He would further submit that none of the decisions (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (83 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioners supports the contention that even in the midst of the process of selection, a candidate belonging to reserve category could claim placement in the list of Open category candidate even before the final list of merit after completion of all the stages of selection is prepared. He would submit that merit in the present cases has to be understood with reference to the job requirement. Even though a candidate may obtain higher marks in the written examination, in order to succeed, he has to prove his speed and efficiency in Computer test and a candidate who may have obtained howsoever high marks in the written examination may even fail if he fails to secure the minimum qualifying marks in Speed and Efficiency Tests. Not only for General category but for reserve category candidates also, minimum qualifying marks, little lower than qualifying marks prescribed for General category candidate, have been prescribed in the advertisement. Therefore, it is argued that it is premature at this stage to claim inclusion merely because a reserve category candidate has secured more marks in the written examination, on the basis that he is more meritorious than the General category candidate and, therefore, entitled to be placed in the list of General category candidate. It is further argued that a candidate, who belongs to reserve category and applies for post against the reserve category, cannot be treated as Open category candidate during the process of selection. The merit would become relevant only when the final merit list is prepared for the purpose of making appointment. The petitioners are reserved category candidates and had applied for posts reserved for their respective categories. According to him, unless the process of (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (84 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] selection is completed and the final merit list is prepared, no candidate belonging to reserve category could claim placement in the shortlisting process, in the list of Open category by claiming that he is more meritorious than a General category candidate. He would further submit that on this aspect that a candidate belonging to reserve category could not claim migration to General category at the intermediary stage of the process of selection unless the final merit list is prepared, consistent view has been taken by this Court in large number of decisions. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chattar Singh and Others Versus State of Rajasthan and Others, (1996) 11 Supreme Court Cases 742 and the Division Bench Judgments of this Court in the cases of Dharamveer Tholia and Others Versus State of Rajasthan and Another, 2000 (3) WLC 399, Garima Sharma Versus The State of Rajasthan and Another, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1448/2016, decided on 08.05.2018, Rajasthan Public Service Commission Versus Dr. Megha Sharma & Others, 2020 (3) RLW 2203 (Raj.), State of Rajasthan & Anr. Versus Hanuman Jat & Others, 2017 (1) RLW 525 (Raj.), Khushi Ram Gurjar Versus Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Another, 2021 (4) RLW 3139 (Raj.), Sunita Meena Versus Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Another, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1244/2022, decided on 20.04.2022, Deepak Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & Others, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5017/2021, decided on 11.01.2022, Kavita Bhargava Versus Registrar Examination, (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (85 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2253/2022 and other batch of petitions, decided on 08.04.2022, a Division Bench Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Pushpendra Kumar Patel and Others Versus High Court of M.P. and Others, WP No.8750 of 2022, decided on 02.01.2023 (MANU/MP/0001/2023).
8. We have given our anxious consideration to respective submissions made by learned senior counsel for the parties, the scheme of examination, terms of advertisement and various decisions cited at the bar.
9. Analysis, reasoning and conclusion:-
9.1 The respondents issued an advertisement on 05.08.2022 for filing up vacancies of Junior Judicial Assistant in the establishment of the Rajasthan High Court, vacancies of Judicial Assistant in State Legal Services Authority, District Legal Services Authority and Clerk Grade-II in State Judicial Academy and in the District Judge establishment, it being a joint recruitment process. The advertisement stated that the aforesaid recruitment shall be governed by the provisions contained in Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Recruitment Rules, 2002 (as amended), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2002) and Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 (as amended), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1986'). The petitioners have not called in question the process of joint recruitment being governed by the aforesaid two rules, however, one of the principal contention is that the process of shortlisting after the written examination is in contravention of the provisions contained in Notification dated 05.12.2002 issued by the Hon'ble Chief Justice in pursuance of (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (86 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] Rules 4, 5, 7 & 22 of the Rules of 2002. Part-I A of the aforesaid Notification deals with the methods of recruitment of ministerial staff. Point (ii) of Part-I A deals with examination which provides as below:-
"(ii) EXAMINATION. - A competitive examination shall be held to test the ability of the candidate in the following subjects & each subject will carry the number of marks shown as under:-
(a) SECTION - A
(i) WRITTEN TEST- The written test shall consist of one paper of 300 marks comprising of :-
Part A Hindi 100 Marks
Part B English 100 Marks
Part C General Knowledge 100 Marks
Each Part shall have 50 Multiple Choice Questions bearing two Marks for each question.
(ii) Duration : Two Hours
(b) SECTION - B
(i) TYPE-WRITING TEST ON COMPUTER There will be Speed Test on Computer.
Speed : Minimum speed should be 8000 depressions per hour on computer. Data will have to be fed in English Language or in dual language, i.e., English and Hindi.
The test will be of 100 marks which will consist of speed test and efficiency test carrying 50 marks each (total 100 marks).
(ii) Duration : Ten Minutes Note:
(i) The syllabus and scope of each subject of the written examination will be as prescribed by the High Court from time to time and will be intimated to the candidates within stipulated time through web-site or in the manner as the High Court deem fit.
(ii) Those candidates who secure minimum 45% marks and 40% marks in case of Specially abled persons and SC/ST candidates in the written test shall be eligible for appearing in the type writing test on computer, subject to the extent of 15 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (87 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] times of the number of vacancies or as the Appointing Authority may deem appropriate but in the said range all those candidates who secure the same percentage of marks shall be included.
(iii) No candidate who failed to secure 50% in the aggregate with at least 40% marks in case of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes & Specially Abled Persons and 45% marks in case of all other categories, in each test, at the competitive examination shall be selected. If two or more of such candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate, their names shall be arranged on the basis of general suitability."
9.2 The aforesaid provisions provide that a competitive examination shall be held to test the ability of the candidate in the prescribed subjects and each subject will carry the number of marks prescribed therein. The examination comprises of Written Test and Typing Test on Computer. Note (ii) provides that those candidates, who secure minimum 45% marks and 40% marks in case of Specially abled persons and SC/ST candidates in the Written Test shall be eligible for appearing in the Typewriting Test on Computer, subject to the extent of 15 times of the number of vacancies or as the Appointing Authority may deem appropriate but, in the said range, all those candidates who secure the same percentage of marks shall be included. An argument has been raised that the aforesaid Note (ii) obliges the respondents to shortlist the candidates, who have obtained minimum qualifying marks in the Written Test irrespective of any category. According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the respondents were obliged to shortlist all the candidates irrespective of their category whether they are in the Open category or any of the reserve category, to the extent provided in the advertisement, i.e., five times the total number of vacancies and, therefore, (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (88 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] shortlisting of the candidates for Typewriting Test category wise is contrary to rules. It is submitted that had this process been adopted, the occasion in the present case would not have arisen where the candidates belonging to various reserve categories, who obtained marks more than the General category candidates in the written examination are ousted and do not get an opportunity to appear in the Typewriting Test on Computer. Restricting shortlisting to the extent of five times as provided in the advertisement, has not been disputed. Even otherwise, the provision provides for the maximum number of times of the number of vacancies for shortlisting of the candidates clearing the written examination and, therefore, it is within the authority of the respondents to restrict the number of candidates to even less than fifteen times the number of vacancies. In the present case, the advertisement clearly provided that the candidates will be shortlisted after the written examination to the extent of five times the number of vacancies advertised.
9.3 It is to be noted that all the vacancies for which the recruitment is being made are governed by the provisions with regard to the reservation to various categories like ST, SC, OBC (NCL), MBC and EWS including horizontal reservation for categories like Physically Handicapped etc. If the interpretation as suggested by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is accepted, the object of the reservation would be seriously jeopardised. Preparation of list category wise in view of scheme of reservation in appointment, is implicit in the rules. This aspect was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chattar Singh and Others Versus State of Rajasthan and Others (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (89 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] (Supra). In that case, process for recruitment to posts in administrative and subordinate services in the State was undertaken. Rule 13 of The Rajasthan State and Subordinate Service (Direct Recruitment By Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1962') provided for the scheme of Examination, Personality and Viva Voce test. Amongst other things, the rule provided that the competitive examination shall be conducted by the Commission in two stages, i.e., Preliminary Examination and Main Examination. It was further provided that the number of candidates to be admitted to the Main Examination will be fifteen times the total approximate number of vacancies to be filled in the year in various services and posts. The relevant rules, later on, underwent amendment which provided that the result should be declared category wise.
9.4 The validity of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1962 providing for scheme of examination was under challenge mainly on the ground that the candidates belonging to OBC category were also eligible to claim reduction of 5% of the marks secured by them in the Preliminary Examination for enabling them to appear in the Main Examination as was available to the candidates belonging to SC/ST category.
9.5 While holding that OBCs were not entitled to 5% cut-off marks in the Preliminary Examination under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1962, it was categorically held that even before amendment in the rules subsequently providing for preparation of list category wise, it was otherwise implicit in the rule. It was held thus:- (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (90 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] "20. As regards the preparation of separate list of General, OBCs, SCs, STs and physically handicapped, in view of the fact that the latest amendment has made explicit what was implicit in Rule 13, we are of the view that separate lists are required to be published by the Service Commission in respect of the candidates in the respective categories so as to make up number of candidates 15 times the notified or anticipated posts/vacancies so as to enable them to appear in the Main Examination. It is true that the amendment is prospective in operation. However, it does not detract from the efficiency of Rule 13 originally made. In view of the above, the Public Service Commission is directed to call all those candidates that constitute 15 times the posts/vacancies notified or anticipated in terms of the above declaration of law so as to enable them to appear in the Main Examination."
9.6 Thus, the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court answers the objections raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that Note (ii) of the scheme of examination, as contained in Notification dated 05.12.2002 does not allow shortlisting category wise. It was categorically held that it was implicit in the rule that separate lists are required to be published by the Service Commission in respect of the candidates in the respective categories so as to make up number of candidates fifteen times the notified or anticipated posts/vacancies so as to enable them to appear in the Main Examination. It was noted that the amendment is prospective in operation. Thus, it was held that even before amendment in the provision, it was implicit in the rules to prepare list category wise. Therefore, the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that shortlisting of the candidates category wise after the written examination is contrary (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (91 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] to the scheme of the examination and scheme of shortlisting does not hold water and is liable to be rejected.
9.7 The aforesaid conclusion also answers challenge to the provisions contained in the advertisement which provides for category wise preparation of list by shortlisting the candidates after the written examination. Therefore, the argument that shortlisting process as provided in the advertisement is contrary to prescription in the rules also fails and is rejected.
9.8 Having participated, the petitioners are precluded from challenging the selection process insofar as preparation of list category wise is concerned. This legal position is no longer res integra and has been settled by series of judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the case of K.A. Nagamani vs. Indian Airlines & Ors. [2009 (5) SC 515], Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [2010 (12) SCC 576], Ramjit Singh Kardam Vs. Sanjeev Kumar [AIR 2020 SC 2060] and Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors. vs. Anil Joshi & Ors. [2013 (11) SCC 309]. It has been stated and re-
affirmed time and again that those, who had submitted applications and participated in the selection process without challenging the process of selection, have no locus to challenge the advertisement and the selection process after they have been declared unsuccessful.
In the case of Ramjit Singh Kardam (supra), it was held as below:
"In Madan Lal and Ors. vs. State of J and K & Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 486, this Court laid down following in paragraph 9:-
"9. ...............It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (92 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 Supp SCC 285: (AIR 1986 SC 1043) : (1986 Lab IC 796, it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner."
The present is not a case of some very glaring and serious illegality committed vitiating the entire process of selection as such."
9.9 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners however relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Pushpendra Kumar Patel and Others Versus High Court of M.P. and Others (Supra) and another Division Bench Judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Another Versus Nitin Kumar and Others (Supra) and contended that before final merit list/select list for appointment is prepared, the candidates in OBC category and other reserved categories, who obtained higher marks in written examination were required to be migrated to the Open category.
9.10 Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chattar Singh and Others Versus State of Rajasthan and Others (Supra), this Court has taken consistent view that the rule of migration will not be applicable at the stages of shortlisting of the candidates at the stage of (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (93 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] screening/preliminary exam and such migration of reserve category candidates, who have obtained more marks than the General category candidates is applicable only at the time of preparation of final merit list/select list for the purposes of making appointment.
9.11 Such consistent view has been taken in the cases of Dharamveer Tholia and Others Versus State of Rajasthan and Another (Supra), Garima Sharma Versus The State of Rajasthan and Another (Supra), Rajasthan Public Service Commission Versus Dr. Megha Sharma & Others (Supra), State of Rajasthan & Anr. Versus Hanuman Jat & Others (Supra), Khushi Ram Gurjar Versus Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Another (Supra), Sunita Meena Versus Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Another (Supra) & Deepak Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & Others (Supra). Aforesaid decisions have been rendered in the matter of challenge to the shortlisting category wise after the Preliminary Examination for the purpose of allowing the candidates to enter into Main Examination. In all the cases, it has been consistently held that the rule of migration would apply only at the time of preparation of final merit list/select list for appointment and not at the screening stage as the marks are not added while preparing final merit list.
9.12 In the case of Dharamveer Tholia and Others Versus State of Rajasthan and Another (Supra), a Division Bench of this Court dealt with the issue as to whether reserved category candidates, who have secured higher marks than the General category candidates, should be accommodated against General (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (94 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] category for the purposes of shortlisting the candidates for the Main Examination. Provision of Rule 15 of The Rajasthan State and Subordinate Service (Direct Recruitment By Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1999), which permitted preparation of the list of candidates to be admitted to the Main Examination, who had taken the Preliminary Examination, category wise, was challenged as violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India. An argument was raised therein that while shortlisting the candidates in the examination for allowing them to appear in the Main Examination, all those candidates in the reserve category, who had obtained higher marks in the process of shortlisting are required to be accommodated in the Open category by replacing those General category candidates, who had obtained lesser marks.
In the aforesaid decision, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chattar Singh and Others Versus State of Rajasthan and Others (Supra) wherein, the judgments of the Division Bench and Single Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court were distinguished, upholding the validity of the rule and the action of the Public Service Commission in preparing the list of candidates category wise. It was held thus:-
"48. In our opinion, the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and that of the learned Single Judge in the case of Pawan Kumar and Ors. (supra), cited by Mr. Soni are distinguishable on facts and law and the field is occupied by the judgments of our own High Court interpreting the scope and ambit of the very rule and reported in 1995(2) WLC 223, 1996 (3) RLW 344 and 1996 (11) SCC 742, (supra). Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 was similar to Rule 13 of the Rules of (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (95 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] 1962, which came up for interpretation before this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the RPSC is required to prepare a list category-wise to the extent of 15 times the number of vacancies in each category. In view of the interpretation of the Supreme Court, there is absolutely no scope for any different interpretation of the said rule as suggested by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The Service Commission has acted only on the basis of the interpretation of Rule 15 as given by the Supreme Court in the case of Chattar Singh (supra). As already noticed, the first Writ Petition No. 3346/2000, was filed by a practicing Advocate of this Court. Though, the writ petition is maintainable at this instance, which exposes a case of public importance, no personal injury is being caused to the Lawyer by giving effect to Rule 15 which was approved by the Apex Court in the above case. In view of the verdict by the Apex Court, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the validity of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999. It is stated by the Service Commission that the rule is in existence and its validity has been upheld by the Supreme Court in 1996. The Commission has held examinations in the past and declared result on the basis of interpretation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to this rule. The preliminary examinations' results were declared on 27.5.2000 and the main examinations are scheduled to be held from 6.8.2000 onwards. However, public interest litigation filed only on 24.7.2000 to challenge the validity of the rule after declaration of the result and after the time table for holding the main examination had been issued is not entertainable at this belated stage. As already seen, the issues raised by the petitioners have already been considered by this Court in the past and this Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal (supra) held that the rule is quite consistent with the reservation policy of the State and further in consonance with the provisions of Article 335 of the Constitution and it does not take away any vested right of SC/ST candidates and pertains only to realm and procedure of the examination process with a view to achieve the screening. The said rule again came up for interpretation after amendment before a Division Bench of this Court in Vijay Kumar Gehlot v. State of Rajasthan [1996 (3) RLW 333] and since there was a difference of opinion expressed by the learned Judges, the matter was referred to the third Judge who agreed with the findings and conclusions of Justice B.R. Arora and recorded his findings as extracted above. It is seen from the above pronouncement of law that the preliminary examination is (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (96 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] essentially a screening test to short list the candidates and the rider of Article 335 cannot be applied at the stage of preliminary examination, but could be applied to the main examination. We cannot presume that by allowing some candidates to appear in the main examination does not automatically induct them in Government Service. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Joshi, a person declared successful in preliminary examination only has a right to appear in the main examination and as has been held by the Supreme Court in Chattar Singh's case (supra). The arguments of the learned Senior Counsel that the list of successful candidates in the preliminary examination should be prepared on the basis of the merits of the candidates secured by them in the preliminary examination and should not be prepared category-
wise, has no merit and force. As per the scheme of the examination, final merit is prepared only after holding the main examination and interview as per Rule 17 of the Rule of 1999 and the marks obtained by the candidates in the main examination and the interviews are taken into account and on the basis of the aggregate marks final merit list is prepared. Such a situation, in our view, is not envisaged at the time of holding the screening test for short-listing the candidates as no merit list is prepared by the Commission at the stage of holding the preliminary test and marks obtained by the candidates in the preliminary examination are not taken into account while preparing the final list of the candidates. The interpretation given by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, will in our opinion, result in denying the reserved category candidate a right of consideration in the main examination as reserved category candidate which will run against the scheme of reservation provided under the Rules and various notifications issued by the State Government." It was noted that the Preliminary Examination is essentially a screening test to shortlist the candidates and the rider of Article 335 of the Constitution of India cannot be applied at the stage of Preliminary Examination, though, it could be applied to the Main Examination as the Court cannot presume that by allowing some candidates to appear in the Main Examination, would not automatically induct them in government service. Submissions made before the Court that a person declared successful in (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (97 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] Preliminary Examination only has a right to appear in the Main Examination, was also noted. The argument that the list of successful candidates in the Preliminary Examination should be prepared on the basis of the merits of the candidates secured by them in the Preliminary Examination and should not be prepared category wise, was rejected on the legal premise that under the scheme of the examination, final merit list was to be prepared only after holding the Main Examination and Interview as per rules and the marks obtained by the candidates in the Main Examination and Interview are taken into account and on the basis of aggregate marks, the final merit list was prepared. It was held that such a situation is not envisaged at the time of holding screening test for the purposes of shortlisting the candidates as no merit list was prepared by the Commission at the stage of holding the Preliminary Examination and marks obtained by the candidates in the Preliminary Examination are not taken into account while preparing the final merit list of the candidates.
The Division Bench further cautioned that interpretation as sought by the petitioners therein would result in denying the reserve category candidate, a right of consideration in the Main Examination as reserve category candidates, which will run against the scheme of reservation provided under the rules and various notifications issued by the State Government.
The contention raised by the petitioners therein was rejected on the following considerations:-
"49. Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 provides the procedure to prepare the list of candidates for appearing in the main (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (98 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] examinations, therefore, the result of the preliminary examination cannot be considered to be a final result. In regard to the submission made by the Senior Counsel for the petitioner about the reservation policy provided under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution as well as the judgments cited are not in dispute but the same in our view, will not be of any help or assistance to the petitioners at this stage of short listing. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the petitioner in Sabharwal's case (supra) pertains to the promotion policy and also of the vacancies based on roster system which in our opinion, will be applicable only at the time of preparing the final select list. As per Rule 15, the RPSC shall permit the candidates 15 times the total approximate number of vacancies in each category in the main examination and this Rule has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Chattar Singh's case (supra). The reservation policy is meant for recruitment only and there is no other reservation policy for short listing in examination. As such, the actions of the RPSC are within the mandate of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India as well as the Rules of 1999. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is accepted, the thousands of meritorious candidates who have been selected as per the preliminary examination will be affected and their interest will be jeopardised."
Thus, the aforesaid was a case where the scheme of migration of reserve category candidates in the open category was not allowed at the stage of shortlisting the candidates for admitting them to Main Examination. The principle which can be carved out from the aforesaid decision is that migration of reserve category candidates to open category on the basis of having obtained higher marks at screening stage of selection process, is neither constitutional, nor statutorily mandated. 9.13 However, a dissent note was struck by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Bhawani Singh Kavaya Versus State of Rajasthan, (2008) 4 RLW Rajasthan 3138. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (99 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] 9.14 Further, another subsequent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Versus Hanuman Jat & Others (Supra), placing reliance upon the earlier decision in the case of Dharamveer Tholia and Others Versus State of Rajasthan and Another (Supra), reiterated the legal position. Again, it was a case where shortlisting of the candidates was undertaken after their performance in the Preliminary Examination for the purposes of admitting the candidates to the Main Examination, which comprises of the multiple stages. It was held as below:-
"19. The Division Bench of this Court is clear in its view that the list of candidates 15 times the number of vacancies category-wise belonging to one category cannot be shifted to another category on the basis of their merit as the list of successful candidates in the preliminary examination is meant only for short-listing the candidates for the main examination and that does not constitute the merit of the candidates, which is done at the time of preparation of final merits of the candidates.
20. It cannot be disputed that the purpose of holding Screening Test is to ensure the basic standard of eligibility of the candidates and even at the stage of admission to the main examination, the rule of reservation of posts cannot be applied. Reservation for applicants is also not permissible under Article 16(4) of the Constitution."
Further proceeding on a legal presumption that the rule of accommodating those reserve category candidates, who have obtained more marks than General category candidates is an aspect of the rule of reservation, it was observed as below:-
"25. In our considered view, the reservation is applied at the time of recruitment and not at the time of preliminary examination for short listing the number of candidates and it is the duty of the recruiting authority to ensure fair and (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (100 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] competitive examination. There is a distinction between the holding of preliminary examination and the main examination. The preliminary examination is held to short list the candidates and marks obtained in such examination are not added while determining the final merit of the candidates and thus, reservation of applicants is not applied at the stage of preliminary examination, as settled by the Apex Court in the case of Chattar Singh (supra) and also by the coordinate Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dharamveer Tholia (supra). We are clear in our view that the rule of reservation is not applied at the time of short listing the candidates and Article 16(4) for reservation is not applied in every stage of selection process as being envisaged in the facts and circumstances of the case and we are in full agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dharamveer Tholia (supra)."
9.15 The line of reasoning adopted by the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Dharamveer Tholia and Others Versus State of Rajasthan and Another (Supra) & State of Rajasthan & Anr. Versus Hanuman Jat & Others (Supra), proceeds on a principle that the accommodation of reserve category candidates in the open category is constitutionally mandated only when the final merit list for the purposes of making appointment is prepared and not at the screening stage.
The common thread of reasoning in all above decisions is that the claim of a reserve category candidate to be accommodated in the Open category on the basis of marks obtained at the Preliminary Examination stage, is not tenable in law as the marks secured are not added for the purpose of preparation of the final merit list and that preparation of category wise list after Preliminary Examination is essential to ensure participation of the candidates belonging to reserve category in the main Examination.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (101 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] The aforesaid Division Bench decisions of this Court are, however, not applicable when the Main Examination commences. The observations made in the cases of Dharamveer Tholia and Others Versus State of Rajasthan and Another (Supra) & State of Rajasthan & Anr. Versus Hanuman Jat & Others (Supra), clearly show that the principle laid down therein was not intended to be applied at the Main Examination.
In para 48 of the decision in the case of Dharamveer Tholia and Others Versus State of Rajasthan and Another (Supra), it was clearly observed that as per the scheme of examination, final merit list is prepared only after holding the Main Examination and Interview and the marks obtained by the candidates in the Main Examination and the Interviews are taken into account and on the basis of the aggregate marks, final merit list is prepared. Such a situation, is not envisaged at the time of holding the screening test for short-listing the candidates as no merit list is prepared by the Commission at the stage of holding the Preliminary Test and the marks obtained by the candidates in the Preliminary Examination are not taken into account while preparing the final merit list of the candidates.
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Versus Hanuman Jat & Others (Supra) also, the aforesaid distinguishing feature was again noted by observing in para 24 of the decision that the marks obtained in the Preliminary Examination are neither part of the Main Examination, nor added while preparing the final merit list of the candidates for giving appointments. All other decisions of different Division Benches of (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (102 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] this Court in the cases of Garima Sharma Versus The State of Rajasthan and Another (Supra), Rajasthan Public Service Commission Versus Dr. Megha Sharma & Others (Supra), Khushi Ram Gurjar Versus Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Another (Supra) and Sunita Meena Versus Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Another (Supra), have followed the decisions in the case of Dharamveer Tholia and Others Versus State of Rajasthan and Another (Supra). Those were all cases where Preliminary Examination was held and the claim was made for migration of reserve category candidates to Open category and not a case where the candidates participated in the Main Examination and appeared in the written examination, being part of the Main Examination. The scheme of examination in the present cases clearly reveals that marks obtained in the Main Examination comprising of the written test and skill test (Typing Test) are to be aggregated for the purposes of preparing the final merit list for appointment. Therefore, it is not a case of scrutiny. The marks obtained by a candidate in the written examination are going to be added for the purposes of preparing a final merit list. Therefore, the principles which have been laid down in Dharamveer Tholia and Others Versus State of Rajasthan and Another (Supra) and all subsequent Division Bench judgments of this Court would not apply at the stage of Main Examination. The decision of Madhya Predesh High Court in the case of Pushpendra Kumar Patel and Others Versus High Court of M.P. and Others (Supra) was also one in which the High Court had examined the claim of migration at the stage of (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (103 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] the Preliminary Examination. Consequently, all the decisions of this Court starting from Dharamveer Tholia and Others Versus State of Rajasthan and Another (Supra) and the Division Bench judgment of Madhya Predesh High Court in the case of Pushpendra Kumar Patel and Others Versus High Court of M.P. and Others (Supra) are not applicable for the reason that those decisions dealt with claim of migration from reserve category to Open category at the stage of Preliminary Examination and not where the candidates' merit is to be judged at the stage of Main Examination and their marks are to be added for the purposes of finalising the merit list. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, that the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision is equally applicable at the time of short-listing the candidates category wise after written test in the Main Examination, is liable to be rejected.
9.16 Where the marks obtained by a candidate in the written test are to be taken into consideration for the purposes of preparation of list of meritorious candidates, inclusion in the Open category must necessarily depend upon the marks obtained in the written test, irrespective of the category to which the candidate belongs to. An Open/General category is open to all and is not reserved only for General category. In other words, whether it be a General category candidate or reserve category candidate, short-listing of the candidates after written test in the Main Examination has to be on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination. A candidate belonging to reserve category, who obtains marks more than the General category candidates is entitled to be placed in (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (104 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] the General category list while short-listing the candidates for the second stage of examination, i.e., skill test. If a reserve category candidate, even though, he has obtained more marks than the cut-off marks of the General category candidate, is excluded and ousted from the process of selection at that stage merely for the reason that he belongs to reserve category, in our considered opinion, would be the worst form of discrimination wholly impermissible under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The right of a candidate belonging to reserve category, who has proved to be more meritorious to be placed in the Open category list, is not a rule of reservation, but a postulate of equality based on merit. Short-listing the candidates category wise in various reserve categories is intended to ensure selection of reserve category candidates and appointment against the posts reserved for them, even if, they are less meritorious, to advance the constitutional mandate enshrined under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. In the case of Janki Prasad Parimoo and Others Versus State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 930, it was observed that "it is implicit in the idea of reservation that a less meritorious person is to be preferred to another who is more meritorious". However, that does not mean that a candidate belonging to reserve category, even if, more meritorious than a General category candidate, has to remain in his own category as that would result in discrimination neither constitutional mandated, nor permissible, having no nexus with the objective of reservation to disadvantageous class of society. This is illustrated by what has happened in the present (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (105 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] batch of petitions. The cut-off marks for General category is lower than the cut-off marks in SC, OBC (NCL), MBC (NCL) & EWS categories. This is clear from the chart mentioned in para 5.4 hereinabove. It clearly shows that the respondents while preparing list category wise have treated Open/General category as a category reserved exclusively for candidates belonging to General category. If the list would have been prepared on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates, irrespective of their category whether they belong to General, SC/ST, OBC, MBC & EWS, all those candidates belonging to SC, OBC (NCL), MBC (NCL) & EWS, who obtained more than the cut-off marks of the General category, would have been included in the General category only, resulting in ouster of many General category candidates. 9.17 The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney and Others Versus Union of India and Others (Supra) in para 418 of its decision laid down the principle that various provisions in the Constitution relating to reservation, therefore, acknowledge that reservation is an integral part of the principle of equality where inequalities exist.
The objective of providing reservation to certain class, according to constitutional mandate enshrined under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, is to ensure that equality for unequal is secured by treating them equally through positive discrimination or affirmative action. Therefore, certain percentage of posts in public employment are reserved for various disadvantageous class as affirmative action.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (106 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] But where a reserve category candidate secures equal or higher merit, he cannot be denied equality of treatment merely on the basis that he belongs to reserve category. Such a classification is not with the objective of providing reservation, but results in excluding a more meritorious reserve category candidate only for the reason that he belongs to reserve category. Such a classification is neither intended to fulfill the objective of reservation, nor the rule of equality based on merit. Thus, the very foundation is unconstitutional.
9.18 In the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney and Others Versus Union of India and Others (Supra), it was propounded as below:-
"811. In this connection it is well to remember that the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to, say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates."
In the aforesaid case, a situation where a candidate belonging to reserve category candidate gets selected in the open competitive field on the basis of his own merit was taken into consideration. It was observed that such selected candidates will not be counted against the reserved quota for SC and will be treated as open competitive candidates. The aforesaid observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Indra Sawhney and Others (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (107 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] Versus Union of India and Others (Supra) became foundation for migration rule.
In a later decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. K. Sabharwal and Others Versus State of Punjab and Others, (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 745 also, the same principle was reiterated. Since then, the aforesaid principle has been succinctly stated and has been affirmed and re-affirmed. 9.19 A three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saurav Yadav and Others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2021) 4 Supreme Court Cases 542, was dealing with an aspect of migration of reserve category candidate to Open category based on merit. The principle which was authoritatively pronounced was as below:-
"26. The principle that candidates belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories are entitled to be selected in "Open or General Category" is well settled. It is also well accepted that if such candidates belonging to reserved categories are entitled to be selected on the basis of their own merit, their selection cannot be counted against the quota reserved for the categories for vertical reservation that they belong. Apart from the extracts from the decisions of this Court in Indra Sawhney (Supra) and R. K. Sabharwal (Supra) the observations by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Shri V. V. Giri vs. D. Susi Dora and Others, AIR 1959 SC 1318, though in the context of election law, are quite noteworthy: (AIR p.p. 1326-27, para 21-22) "21. ... In our opinion, the true position is that a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe does not forego his right to seek election to the general seat merely because he avails himself of the additional concession of the reserved seat by making the prescribed declaration for that purpose. The claim of eligibility for the reserved (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (108 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] seat does not exclude the claim for the general seat; it is an additional claim; and both the claims have to be decided on the basis that there is one election from the double-member constituency.
22. In this connection we may refer by way of analogy to the provisions made in some educational institutions and universities whereby in addition to the prizes and scholarships awarded on general competition amongst all the candidates, some prizes and scholarships are reserved for candidates belonging to backward communities. In such cases, though the backward candidates may try for the reserved prizes and scholarships, they are not precluded from claiming the general prizes and scholarships by competition with the rest of the candidates."
x............x...........x..........x...........x...........x...........x..........x
38. The second view is thus neither based on any authoritative pronouncement by this Court nor does it lead to a situation where the merit is given precedence. Subject to any permissible reservations i.e. either Social (Vertical) or Special (Horizontal), opportunities to public employment and selection of candidates must purely be based on merit. Any selection which results in candidates getting selected against Open/General category with less merit than the other available candidates will certainly be opposed to principles of equality. There can be special dispensation when it comes to candidates being considered against seats or quota meant for reserved categories and in theory it is possible that a more meritorious candidate coming from Open/General category may not get selected. But the converse can never be true and will be opposed to the very basic principles which have all the while been accepted by this Court. Any view or process of interpretation which will lead to incongruity as highlighted earlier, must be rejected.
39. The second view will thus not only lead to irrational results where more meritorious candidates may possibly get (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (109 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] sidelined as indicated above but will, of necessity, result in acceptance of a postulate that Open / General seats are reserved for candidates other than those coming from vertical reservation categories. Such view will be completely opposed to the long line of decisions of this Court. x............x...........x...........x.........x..........x.........x........x
61. The open category is not a 'quota', but rather available to all women and men alike. Similarly, as held in Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2007) 8 SCC 785, there is no quota for men. If we are to accept the second view [as held by the Allahabad High Court in Ajay Kumar v. State of UP, 2019 SCC OnLine All 2674 and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in State of M.P. v. Uday Sisode, 2019 SCC OnLine MP 5750, referred to in paras 24 & 25 of Lalit, J.' Judgment], the result would be confining the number of women candidates, irrespective of their performance, in their social reservation categories and therefore, destructive of logic and merit. The second view, therefore-perhaps unconsciously supports-but definitely results in confining the number of women in the select list to the overall numerical quota assured by the rule. x...........x.........x.........x..........x..........x.........x..........x.........x
66. I would conclude by saying that reservations, both vertical and horizontal, are method of ensuring representation in public services. These are not to be seen as rigid "slots", where a candidate's merit, which otherwise entitles her to be shown in the open general category, is foreclosed, as the consequence would be, if the state's argument is accepted. Doing so, would result in a communal reservation, where each social category is confined within the extent of their reservation, thus negating merit. The open category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type is available to her or him." (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (110 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] 9.20 The law declared is that reservations are method of ensuring representation and not to be seen rigid "slots", where a candidate's merit, which otherwise entitles him/her to be shown in the Open/General category is foreclosed by confining candidate of a reserve category to his rigid "slots", even though, he is more meritorious, that would result in a communal reservation. This would negate merit. It has been reiterated as a settle principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Indra Sawhney and Others Versus Union of India and Others (Supra), R.K. Sabharwal and Others Versus State of Punjab and Others (Supra) and several decisions thereafter that the Open category is open to all, and only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type, i.e., Vertical or Horizontal, is available to her/him. 9.21 That is what has been held by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Another Versus Nitin Kumar and Others (Supra) by holding that reservation is a process by which a certain number of posts, or seats is carved out for stipulated categories such as SC/ST, OBC and further that unreserved seats do not constitute a reservation for candidates belonging to categories other than the reserve categories. It has been held therein that an unreserved post or seat is one in which every individual irrespective of the category to which the person belongs can compete in open merit. The law enunciated therein that the principle which is embodied in the recruitment rule applicable in that case that if a person belonging to any of the reserve category is selected on the basis of merit in (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (111 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] an open competition of the General candidate, he shall not be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for reserve categories, is not confined in its application only at the stage when the final merit list is to be drawn up as that would result in seriously absurd consequences.
That was a case where the candidates belonging to reserve categories had appeared in the written test of the Main Examination and secured marks higher than the General category candidates, yet they were not placed in the Open category resulting in their ouster from the process of selection as they were not allowed to appear in the Interview, the second stage of Main Examination. Similar is the situation in the present case also. The petitioners before this Court are those who could not be included in their respective reserve category list because the cut-off marks in the respective category are very high. Even though, their marks are higher than the marks obtained by a large number of General category candidates, yet they have not been included in the Open category list. This has resulted by treating Open category also as a category reserved only for General category, not allowing more meritorious reserve category candidates to enter and find place therein. It negates merit.
9.22 The Madhya Predesh High Court in the case of Kishore Choudhary Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (Supra) has taken a view which is partly not in accord with consistent view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dharamveer Tholia and Others Versus State of Rajasthan and Another (Supra) and series of decisions insofar (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (112 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] as preparation of merit list at the stage of Preliminary Examination/Screening Test is concerned. However, the aforesaid decision on principle supports the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Another Versus Nitin Kumar and Others (Supra), insofar as preparation of the list of successful candidates after written test in the Main Examination for the purpose of allowing the candidates in the next stage of Main Examination is concerned. Therefore, to that extent only we are in accord with the view taken by the Madhya Predesh High Court in the case of Kishore Choudhary Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (Supra). 9.23 Therefore, exercise of preparing list of Open category candidates in present cases is violative of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Indra Sawhney and Others Versus Union of India and Others (Supra), R.K. Sabharwal and Others Versus State of Punjab and Others (Supra) & Saurav Yadav and Others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (Supra).
9.24 However, In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saurav Yadav and Others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (Supra), those reserve category candidates, who have availed of any special benefit which may dis-entitle them from being considered against Open/General category seat, cannot be migrated from their own reserve category to Open/General category on the basis of merit. 9.25 While dealing with the first contention made on behalf of the petitioners that the applicable rules do not contemplate category (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (113 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] wise preparation of list and, therefore, the process of short-listing of the candidates category wise after written examination, is contrary to the prescription of the rules, we have analyzed the scheme of the applicable rules and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chattar Singh and Others Versus State of Rajasthan and Others (Supra), it has been held that preparation of list category wise is implicit and, therefore, it cannot be accepted that the rule does not permit preparation of category wise list after written examination and based on that analogy. Further contention that the process of short-listing after written examination provided under the advertisement is contrary to rules, has also been rejected. Several Supreme Court decisions have been relied upon to hold that those, who had submitted applications and participated in the selection process without challenging the process of selection, have no locus to challenge the selection process after they have been declared successful.
9.26 Though, the petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge category wise preparation of list, in view of above consideration, the principle enunciated above would not come in the way of challenging the action, whereby, while preparing category wise list after written examination, settled principles with regard to inclusion of meritorious reserve category candidates in the Open/General category has not been followed. Present is not a case where the rule or the advertisement expressly provided to the contrary that under no circumstance, more meritorious reserve category candidates would be included in the (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (114 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] Open/General category candidates merit list on the basis of their performance in the written examination. This is so because even where challenge to preparation of list category wise after written examination may not be permissible, it is always open to judicial scrutiny whether the principle of migration of reserve category candidates to Open/General category on the basis of their own merit, subject to the condition that they have not availed of any special benefit which may dis-entitle them from being considered against Open/General category post, has been followed.
The respondents' contention that the petitioners having participated in the process of selection, cannot be allowed to claim that more meritorious reserve category candidates ought to be placed in the General category list and not in their respective reserve category is, therefore, rejected.
9.27 As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion, it is inescapable conclusion that while preparing category wise list after written examination, those reserve category candidates, who had obtained more marks than the cut-off marks arrived at for General category, were required to be included in the Open category list. The law required the respondents to first draw list of General/Open category based on merit. Those reserve category candidates, who were able to compete on the basis of merit, were required to be placed in the Open/General category list being five times the number of vacancies in the Open/General category seats. The reserve category list was required to be drawn only thereafter by including on the basis of merit, reserve category candidates, of course, by excluding those reserve category (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (115 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] candidates, who had already been included in the Open/General category list. The action of the respondents in preparing category wise list without adjusting more meritorious reserve category candidates in the Open/General category list and thereby restricting inclusion of the candidates in the Open/General category list only to General category candidates, is in violation of principles laid down in Indra Sawhney and Others Versus Union of India and Others (Supra), R.K. Sabharwal and Others Versus State of Punjab and Others (Supra) & Saurav Yadav and Others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (Supra).
As a result of preparation of list of various categories is in violation of law, all those reserve category candidates, who had obtained marks more than the General category candidates, have remained in their respective list, even though, they obtained higher marks as compared to many General category candidates. Had those more meritorious candidates been included in the Open/General category, it would have paved way for the inclusion of the petitioners either in their respective reserve category or in the Open/General category. In that case, the petitioners, if included in their respective reserve category on account of migration of more meritorious reserve category candidates of their respective category to Open/General category were entitled to appear in the skill test.
9.28 Some of the petitioners in these batch of petitions were allowed to provisionally appear in the skill test, whereas, rest of the petitioners were not allowed. All these petitions were heard (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (116 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] and reserve for orders before any appointments were made by the respondents.
9.29 Consequently, all these petitions are disposed off with following directions:
(A) Respondents shall undertake an exercise of revision of category wise list by including in the Open/General category list, those candidates of reserve category, who have secured more marks in the written examination provided they have not taken or availed of any special benefit which may dis-entitle them from being considered against Open/General category post.
(B) After drawing the Open/General category list, the list of respective reserve category shall be drawn up.
(C) If, as a result of aforesaid exercise, it is found that the petitioners herein have been accommodated either in the Open/General category list or there respective reserve category list then:
(i) If they have already been allowed to provisionally appear in the Typewriting Test on Computer, subject to they having secured minimum qualifying marks in Typewriting Test, their aggregate marks obtained in the written examination and Typewriting Test shall be drawn up.
(ii) Those, who have not been allowed to provisionally appear in the Typewriting Test, they will be entitled to appear in the Typewriting Test and for this purpose, the respondents shall hold Typewriting Test on Computer for such candidates, subject to they having obtained minimum qualifying marks in the Typewriting (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (117 of 117) [CW-7564/2023] Test, their aggregate marks obtained in written examination and Typewriting Test shall also be drawn up.
(D) The merit list in the Open/General category and the respective reserve category shall be re-worked. If the petitioners herein are included either in the Open/General category list on the basis of their merit, they shall be offered appointment against posts in General/Open category, subject to the condition that they are fulfilling all other requirements. Similarly, those petitioners, who have been able to secure a place in the merit list of their respective reserve category would be offered appointment against posts in their respective reserved category, subject to fulfilling all other conditions.
(E) It goes without saying that while undertaking revision of the list, provisions contained in (i) to (v) under Section B of Clause 15 of the advertisement shall have to be followed. (F) If no vacant posts are available, less meritorious candidates, who have been appointed in Open category or reserve category, as the case may be, are required to be terminated.
9.30 Aforesaid directions are being issued as the appointments were not made till the date of conclusion of hearing.
A copy of this order be placed on record of each connected petition.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J SANJAY KUMAWAT-140-193 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:08:06 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)