Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vinod Patidar S/O Shri Lalji Patidar vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 May, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:16562]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 278/2025
1. Mohit Soni S/o Shri Giriraj Prasad, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident Of Village Pipaloda, Tehsil Bonli, District
Sawaimadhopur
2. Ramesh Kumar Vishnoi S/o Shri Raghunath Ram, Aged
About 33 Years, Permanent Resident Of Vishnoiyon Ki
Dhani, Rohat, District Pali
3. Mukesh Kumar Jakhar S/o Shri Panna Ram Jakhar, Aged
About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Udansar, Tehsil
Fatehpur, District Sikar
4. Arjun Singh Tanwar S/o Shri Kalu Singh, Aged About 31
Years, Resident Of 64, Ram Vihar Colony, Airport Road,
Jaipur
5. Parmeshwar S/o Bhera Ram, Aged About 27 Years,
Permanent Resident Of Podoki Dhani, Village Ranwa,
Tehsil Kuchamancity, District Nagaur
6. Dinesh Kumar S/o Hiralal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident
Of Pradhano Ka Mohalla, Village Nimaj District Pali,
Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Represented Through Principal
Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Krishi Agriculture
Institutional Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur Represented
Through Its Secretary
3. Director, Treasuries And Accounts, Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar,
Jaipur
4. Parasram Meena, Resident Of Village And Post Malrana
Dungar, Shesha, District Sawaimadhopur
5. Priyanka Verma D/o Shri Kalu Ram Verma, Resident Of
Near Darbar School, Nehru Colony, Sambharlake, District
Jaipur
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 202/2025
1. Vinod Patidar S/o Shri Lalji Patidar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o- Village Mungana, Post Sundani, Village Mungana, District Banswara, Rajasthan.
2. Yashvardhan Singh S/o Shri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o- Village Post Jhousawa, Village Chitri, Tehsil Galiyakot, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
3. Hemant Patel S/o Shri Devi Lal Patel, Aged About 31 Years, R/o- 239 Manwa Kheda Near Govt. School, District (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (2 of 58) [CW-278/2025] Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Rahul Saini S/o Shri Sitaram Saini, Aged About 30 Years, R/o- Village Bansur Saini Bhawan Badh Bhav Singh Near Petrol Pump, Kotputli Road, Alwar, Rajasthan.
5. Vinod Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Budhha Ram Yadav, Aged About 31 Years, R/o- Nadiki Dhani, Lalpura Pachar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Satish Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o- Village Pachlangi, Jharayan Nagar, Dhani Bawari Wali, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
7. Nishant Tiwari S/o Shri Suresh Chand Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o- Plot No. 261/37 Sector 26 Rhb Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
8. Mukesh Kumar Chaudhary S/o Shri Kalu Ram Jat, Aged About 28 Years, R/o- Village Trilokpura Post Nayan, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
9. Gaurav Jindal S/o Shri Omprakash Gupta, Aged About 30 Years, R/o- Near Old Truck Union Mandrayal Road, Karauli, Rajasthan.
10. Simartha Ram S/o Shri Teja Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o- Dheerasar Pokhsar, Tehsil Chautan, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
11. Suneel Chaudhary S/o Shri Tara Chand, Aged About 30 Years, R/o- Village Huliyana, Post Tikari, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
12. Bhagirath Chaudhary S/o Shri Laadu Lal Chaudhary, Aged About 30 Years, R/o- Ibrahim Nagar, Post Payaga, District Tonk, Rajasthan.
13. Ravi Sain S/o Shri Tara Chand Sain, Aged About 29 Years, R/o- Ambedkar Colony, Kherda, District Swaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
14. Rajesh Singh S/o Shri Vijay Pal Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o- Piplai Tehsil Pilani, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
15. Sandeep Tarar S/o Shri Rajendra Tarar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o- Purani Abadi, Ward No.4 Gali No.1 Chandani Chowk, Shriganganagar, Rajasthan.
16. Ravi Rajan Rinwa S/o Shri Rampal Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o- Near Panchmulhi Temple Gada Dham, Thesil Didwana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
17. Mohan Prasad Yadav S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o- Asha Ki Kothi, Rabdan Ki Dhani, Niwaru Road, Jothwara, Jaipur.
18. Mohit Jain S/o Shri Anand Jain, Aged About 28 Years, R/o- Nayi Anaj Mandi Ke Samne, Link Road, Mahaveer Nagar, Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
19. Rakesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Babu Lal Yadav, Aged About 29 Years, R/o- 171 Khatodiya Ki Dhani, Village Niwaru, Govindpura Link Road, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM)[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (3 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
20. Sajjan Singh Rao S/o Shri Chandan Singh Rao, Aged About 31 Years, R/o- Village Dashahara, Post Bhachadiya, District Banswara, Rajasthan.
21. Jitendra Kumar S/o Shri Purkha Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o- Sutharon Ki Dhani, Village Post Shergarh, Tehsil Shergarh, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
22. Lekhraj Vishnoi S/o Shri Jodhram Vishnoi, Aged About 31 Years, R/o- Lamba Tehsil Bilara, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
23. Lalit Singh Sisodiya S/o Shri Bheem Singh Sisodiya, Aged About 31 Years, R/o- Chaupasani, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
24. Ratan Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Singh Bhati, Aged About 30 Years, R/o- Bukansara, Baran, Sardarsahar, District Churu, Rajasthan.
25. Rakesh Vishnoi S/o Manoar Lal Vishnoi, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 6/7 Near Prem Sagar Bera Gayatri Nagar Parihar Nagar Jodhpur
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat Jaipur.
2. Chairman, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302018.
3. Deepali Arora D/o Maish Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of H.no. 2/128/old Rhb Colony, Ward No. 25 New, Suratgarh, Sri Ganganagar.
4. Anita Haritwal D/o Banwari Lal, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Bhopatpura, Ringas, Sikar.
5. Anjana Jangid D/o Staya Narayan Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of B-46, Natraj Nagar, Imli Phatak, Jaipur.
6. Amit Bansiwal S/o Hanuman Ram, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Raigaro Ka Mohalla, Vpo Badu, Parbatsar Dist. Nagaur.
7. Pushpendra Kumar Meena S/o Kalu Ram Meena, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Kharin Ka Jhonprai, Post Hingota, Tehsil Mandawar, Dist. Dausa.
8. Vijay Kumar S/o Kupra Ram (Tsp-St), R/o Village Lundada, Post Malnoo, Tehsil Bali, Dist. Pali.
9. Kishan Lal Navariya S/o Nathu Lal Navariya, Aged About 29 Years, 51/59, Pratap Nagar Sanganer, Jaipur.
10. Sonu Meena S/o Ram Prasad, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Gopalpura, Post Asnawer, Tehsil Kishanganj, Dist. Baran.
11. Gauri Shankar Meena S/o Babu Lal Meena, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Post Bhanvati, The. Baswa, Dist. Dausa.
12. Ajay Kumar Meena S/o Giriraj Prasad Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Alipur Th Mandawar, Dausa.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM)[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (4 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
13. Harkesh Meena S/o Meetha Lal Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Jodli Kothi Vpo Nihalpura, The. Bejupada, Dist. Dausa.
14. Munesh Kumar Bairwa S/o Chet Ram Bairwa, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Thikariya Village, Sikrai, Dist. Dausa.
15. Kamlesh Kumar Meena S/o Jayaarayan Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Haripura, Post Maheshwar Khurd, Thesil Dausa, Dist. Dausa.
16. Narsi Lal Meena S/o Kalu Ram Meena, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Chakrewas, Post Kolana, Tehl. Baswa, Dist. Dausa.
17. Pooja Goyanka D/o Mahesh Chand Goyanka, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Chatikna, Near Mela Gae, Karauali.
18. Radhika Saini D/o Ramji Lal Saini, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vill. Badgurjaro Ka Bag Karoth, Thel. Rajghar, Dist. Alwar.
19. Urmila Dewat D/o Rispal Chand Dewat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Sisodia Garden Colony, Haribau Upadhyay Nagar, Ajmer.
20. Mast Ram Meena S/o Mukhalya Ram Meena, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Indpura, Post Thana Ranaji, Tehsil Rajgarh, Dist. Alwar.
21. Jyoti Kumari Yadav D/o Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Aged About 29 Years, Villag Gailpur, Post Maseet, Tehsil Tijara, Dist. Alwar.
22. Vineeta Meena D/o Ramkesh Meena, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Jhareda, Tehsil Hindaun City, Karauli.
23. Rakehs Kumar Meena D/o Badri Lal Meena, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Pattichimanpura, Post Talavgoan, Tehsil Lalsot, Dausa.
24. Abhishek Meena S/o Ramjilal Meena, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vpo Sankotra, Jamwramghar,jaipur.
25. Prem Singh S/o Meva Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Vill.
Nagla Chhailla, Post Shahpura, Teh. Bayana, Dist. Bharatpur.
26. Indra Kumar Meena S/o Kalu Ram Meena, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Sumel Ka Bas, Post Poonkhar, Dist. Alwar.
27. Swaroop Singh S/o Mohar Chand, Aged About 29 Years, R/o H 48, Vishvakarma Colony, Behind Dattarye School, Alwar.
28. Dinesh Meena S/o Bhagwan Sahay, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Asarpura Narayan Vihar O-Block, Meeno Ki Dhaani, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
29. Parasram Meena S/o Hanuman Prasad Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Post Shesha, Tehsil Malarna Dunger, Dist. Sawai Madhopur.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM)[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (5 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
30. Mahendra Meena S/o Hari Ram Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Fulwara, Tehl. Banwas, Sawaimadhopur.
31. Ravi Kumar Doriya S/o Beerbal Bairwa, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Dhani Barkhed, Bairwa Bhandarej Dausa.
32. Lokesh Mahawar S/o Badri Prasad Mahawar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Bawadi Pada Mohalla, Dausa.
33. Sunil Kumar Bairwa S/o Om Prakash Bairwa, R/o Near By Power House Bairwa Colony, Kherda Swaimadhopur.
34. Dinesh Dharth S/o Narayan Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Meghwalo Ka Bas, Via Marwa Mundwara, Nagaur.
35. Sumit Mandawariya S/o Deendayal Mandawariya, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 170 Raghunathpuri-Ii Near Airport, Jaipur.
36. Rajdeep Kaur D/o Baldev Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Kanga Colony, War No. 17 Near Kk Children School, Hanumanghar.
37. Prakash Chanra S/o Raghunath Prasad Garg, Aged About 34 Years, R/o House No. 267, Chahappar Prara, Valmiki Colony, Jaisalmer.
38. Yashwant Mahawar S/o Hemraj Mahawar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 105/60 Vijay Path, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Dist. Jaipur.
39. Devendra Singh S/o Manoj Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Sehna, Tehsil Rupbas, Dist. Bharatpur.
40. Vishnu Kumar Meena S/o Sharvan Meena, R/o Vpo Medi, Teh. Wazirpur, Dist. Sawaimadhopur.
41. Pooja Kanwar D/o Ummed Singh, Aged About 26 Years, Vpo Barna, Tehsil Degana, Dist. Nagaur.
42. Suresh Meena S/o Seeta Ram Meena, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 1050 Meeno Ki Dhani Begas, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
43. Mahaveer Meena S/o Prathviraj Meena, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Kundi Post, Mundkya Tehsil Chhabra, Dist. Baran.
44. Neeraj Kumar Sharma S/o Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Kishan Nagar Near New Telephonic Exchange Hindaun City Hindaun Karauli Pin Code 322230.
45. Anurag S/o Purushotam Lal Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Resident Of Dheerajpura, Rampura, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan 333036
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 347/2025
1. Dharmandra Singh Sheshma S/o Shri Bhadur Singh Sheshma, Aged About 29 Years, R/o- Budh Singh Ki Dhani, Hod Via Khandela, Sikar, Rajasthan-332709
2. Nishant Upadhyay S/o Shri Yogesh Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o-Chandpole Gate Ke Pass, Namak Katra, (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (6 of 58) [CW-278/2025] Bharatpur, Rajasthan-321001
3. Tulsi Ram Meena S/o Shri Ram Bharos Meena, Aged About 27 Years, R/o- Vpo-Kodyai, Teshil-Bonli, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan-322030
4. Hitesh Pathak S/o Shri Narayan Lal Pathak, Aged About 30 Years, R/o- Vill-Bahadurpur, Post-Jatnangla, Hindaun City, Karauli, Rajasthan- 322236
5. Zakir Hussain S/o Shri Nafi Mohammad, Aged About 30 Years, R/o- Cheepo Ka Bas, Salawas, Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342013
6. Sunil Tiwari S/o Shri Chandra Prakash Tiwari, Aged About 30 Years, R/o- Pareeko Ka Mohalla, Kalwar, Jaipur, Raajasthan-303706
7. Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Moolchand, Aged About 32 Years, R/o- Jaisinghpura, Badawasi, Nawalgarh, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-333042
8. Bharat Singh Mali S/o Shri Chhotu Singh Mali, Aged About 31 Years, R/o- Mali Mohala, Saradhana, Ajmer, Rajasthan- 305206
9. Bhupender Singh S/o Shri Gurmel Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o- V.15 Rb Po 71 Rb, Raisinghnagar, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan-335051
10. Anoop Kumar S/o Shri Banwari Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o- Plot No. 35, Residency Campus, Udaipur Rajasthan- 313001
11. Sitaram Sahu S/o Shri Amararam Sahu, Aged About 29 Years, R/o- Vpo-Kuntasar, Sri Dungargarh, Bikaner, Rajasthan-331803
12. Gopal Singh S/o Shri Birma Ram Manda, Aged About 32 Years, R/o- Kokpura, Arakasar, Kuchaman, Nawa, Nagaur Rajasthan-341519
13. Ankit Katewa S/o Shri Ramesh Chand, Aged About 34 Years, R/o- Vpo- Bakhtawarpura, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan- 333023
14. Sachin Mahiya S/o Shri Rajveer, Aged About 31 Years, R/o- Ward No.14, Chak 4Md, Meharwala, Hanumangarh Rajasthan-335526
15. Banwari Lal S/o Shri Ramkumar, R/o- Merta City Tehsil-
Merta City, District Nagaur, State-Rajasthan, Pincode- 341510
16. Dharmesh Kumawat S/o Shri Banshi Lal Kumawat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o- 02 Dagliyo Ki Magri, Near Shiv Temple, Bhuwana, Udaipur, Rajasthan-313001
17. Mohit Yadav S/o Shri Ramswaroop Yadav, Aged About 25 Years, R/o- Kundanpura, Pahadiya, Phagi, Jaipur, Rajasthan-303904
18. Mahendra Khichar S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Khichar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o- Vpo-Jodpura, Chandpura, Kuchaman (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (7 of 58) [CW-278/2025] City, Nagaur, Rajasthan-341508
19. Ram Gopal Kumawat S/o Shri Ratan Lal Kumawat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o- Baragaon, Baragaon, Udaipurwati, Jhunjhunu Rajasthan-333021
20. Gopal Puri Goswami S/o Shri Kailash Puri Goswami, Aged About 37 Years, R/o- Khayra, Badamahua, Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311401
21. Hitesh Meena S/o Shri Samandar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o- Vpo-Salempur Khurd, Bhusawar, Bharatpur Rajasthan-321407
22. Gajendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ram Khiladi Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o-Aam Ka Jhahara, Nadauti, Karauli, Rajasthan-322213
23. Devendra Kumar Bhojak S/o Shri Hanut Mal Bhojak, Aged About 30 Years, R/o- Ward No. 08, Manju Mata Mandir Ka Pass, Sardarshahar, Churu, Rajasthan-331403
24. Shri Gopal S/o Shri Kundan Mal Pareek, Aged About 26 Years, R/o- Gogasar, Ratanghar, Churu, Rajasthan- 331504
25. Kapil Kumar S/o Shri Rajeer, Aged About 27 Years, R/o-
Nawan, Rajgarh, Churu, Rajasthan-331301
26. Mukesh Nath S/o Shri Rameshwar Nath, Aged About 27 Years, R/o- Katariyasar, Bikaner, Rajasthan-334022
27. Mohan Lal S/o Shri Dhanna Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o- Vayad Tec-Rohat, Pali Rajasthan-306421
28. Anurag Agarwal S/o Shri Murari Lal Agarwal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o- 162 Ganesh Nagar 8, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur Rajasthan-302012
29. Manish Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Shashikant Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o- 20/a Kaushal Nagar, Bandikui, Dausa Rajasthan-303313
30. Mahesh Kumar Swami S/o Shri Chhotu Ram Swami, Aged About 31 Years, R/o- 21-A, Gulab Vihar, Sirsi Road, Panchyawala, Jaipur Rajasthan-302034
31. Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Vinod Kumar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o- Ward No. 5, Gilwala, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan-335526
32. Yogesh Acharya S/o Shri Manak Chandhanut Mal, R/o-
Pragya Kunj Near Gyatri Temple, Merta City, District- Nagaur, State Rajasthan-341510
33. Kailash Chand Yadav S/o Shri Chouth Mal Yadav, Aged About 32 Years, R/o- Bhuranpura Nesti Po Lakher Th Amer, Jaipur Rajasthan-303104
34. Rajesh Nitharwal S/o Shri Kesar Nitharwal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o- Jaipura, Kadera, Chaksu, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 303901
35. Nitish Vijay S/o Shri Ramesh Vijay, Aged About 33 Years, (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (8 of 58) [CW-278/2025] R/o- 26 Mahaveer Nagar, Ranjke Wale Baba Ke Pass, Tonk, Rajasthan-304001
36. Bajrang Jakhar S/o Shri Sugana Ram Jakhar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o- Balesh Ka Tiba, Roopangarh, Ajmer Rajasthan-305814.
37. Kuldeep Poonia S/o Shri Ramswaroop Poonia, Aged About 28 Years, R/o-Village Himmatpura, Post- Devgaon Nua, District-Jhunjhunu-Rajasthan-333707
38. Ramcharan Dholiya S/o Shri Shankar Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o- 273, Jaton Ka Bas, Ghantiya, Nagaur Rajasthan-341510
39. Akash Bhardwaj S/o Shri Jagdish Bhardwaj, Aged About 29 Years, R/o-5/346, Behind Khadi Bhandar, Shiv Colony, Karauli, Hindaun City , Rajasthan-322230
40. Pushpendra Kumar S/o Shri Mohar Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o- Village- Dusraheda, Post-Barodameo, Tehsil- Laxmangarh, Alwar Rajasthan-301021
41. Hemant Kumar Agarwal S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o- 5-Ka-Housng Board, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Near Jhulelal Temple, Jaipur, State- Rajasthan-302016
42. Ravi Saini S/o Shri Hariom Prakash, Aged About 35 Years, R/o-42, Krishna Colony, Near Ambedkar Circle, Opposite Jhalani Hospital, Alwar, Rajasthan-301001
43. Amar Chand Meena S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o- Ward No. 13 Behind Of Fort Danta Ramgarh, District- Sikar, Rajasthan-332703 Rajasthan-
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Department Of Treasuries And Accounts, Through Director, Jyothi Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 518/2025
1. Monika Verma D/o Sitaram Verma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Plot No.06, Kesar Nagar, Bajri Mandi Road, Panchyawala, District Jaipur, Raj., 302034.
2. Veerendra Singh S/o Ram Karan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Jatmasi Tehsil Rupbas, District Bharatpur (Raj.) 324103
3. Rahul Dubga S/o Govind Dubga, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Behind Anathalaya Vivek Nagar, Distt. Bikaner (Raj.) (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (9 of 58) [CW-278/2025] 334001
4. Ravindra Kumar Regar S/o Prabhu Lal Regar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Bindhya Bhata, Teh. Jahazpur, District Bhilwara 311201
5. Ravipal Singh S/o Likhmaram Pindar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Bobasar Bidawatan, Teh. Sujangarh, District Churu (Raj. 331507.
6. Naveen Kumar Jatav S/o Ramesh Chand Jatav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Peepalkhera, Post Salwari, Distt. Alwarl (Raj.) 301035.
7. Nishu Behwal D/o Brij Mohan Behwal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Plot No. C-18 D, Narayan Vihar, Jagnnathpura, Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.) 302029.
8. Rinku Kumar Nayaq S/o Ram Pratap Nayaq, Aged About 30 Years, R/o V/p Bhojyakheri, Tehsil Anta, District Baran, (Raj.) 325202
9. Kanak Lal S/o Radheshyam, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Khohara Kalan, Post Biletha, Tehsil Jahazpur, District Bhilwara (Raj.) 311203
10. Mahaveer Singh S/o Rajendra Kumar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Near Gsss 45 Ndr, Devnagar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.) 335803
11. Indraj Meena S/o Jay Dayal Meena, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vill. Munapura, Post Kot, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa (Raj.) 321609
12. Sanjay Kumar Regar S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vill. Khinyera, Teh. Loonkaranasar, Distt. Bikaner (Raj.) 334603
13. Lalit Kumar S/o Rajendra Kumar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Near 100 Number Railway Gate, Subhash Nagar, Merta Road, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.) 341511
14. Pooja Kumari Meena D/o Ram Kunwar Meena, Aged About 26 Years, Village- Jawalika Badh Baswa, Teh. Baswa, Post Baswa, District Dausa (Raj.) 303327
15. Sunil Kumar Bohra S/o Chetan Lal Bohra, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 231, Jadamba Nagar, Back Side Of Heerapura Power House, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.) 302021.
16. Rishi Raj Meena S/o Ram Kesh Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vpo Sewa, Tehsil Wazirpur, District Sawai Madhopur, Raj., 322219.
17. Vijendra Kumar S/o Purn Chand, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward No.14, Jogiasan, Regar Mohalla, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Raj., 335523.
18. Uday Singh Meena S/o Rambharosi Meena, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Nai Meena Ka Pura, Todabhim, District Karauli (Raj.) 321611.
19. Suraj Kumar Kilania S/o Shishpal Kilania, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ward No.02, Dundlod, District Jhunjhunu, Raj., (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (10 of 58) [CW-278/2025] 333702.
20. Pradeep Sakrawal S/o Kalu Ram Sakrawal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Mkb 410, Manoharpura, Kachhi Basti Jagatpura, District Jaipur, Raj., 302025.
21. Suman Meena D/o Gulab Chand Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o P-201, Mahal Road, Rohini Nagar, Jagatpura, Teelawala, District Jaipur (Raj.) 302017
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur, 302005.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Secretary, Rajya Krishi Prabandh Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura, Jaipur-302018.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 796/2025 Arpita Jain D/o Paras Mal Jain, Aged About 22 Years, R/o 85/140, Sector 8, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Department Of Treasuries And Accounts, Through Director, Jyothi Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 801/2025 Ankit Sharma S/o Shri Ram Dayal Sharma, Aged About 39 Years, R/o- B-82, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur, District-Jaipur, State- Rajasthan -302015
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Department Of Treasuries And Accounts, Through Director, Jyothi Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 869/2025
1. Geeta Verma D/o Ramlal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Rulana, Tehsil Danta Ramgarh, District Sikar, Raj.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM)[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (11 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
-332601.
2. Deepak Solanki S/o Gopal Solanki, Aged About 32 Years, R/o G-66, New Bapu Nagar, District Bhilwara, Raj.
-311001.
3. Rajesh Sharma S/o Satya Narayan Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, R/o A-163, Goverdhan Nagar, Toll Tax, Tonk Road, District Jaipur, Raj.-302033.
4. Prakash Kumar Saini S/o Babu Lal Saini, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Beda Ki Dhani, Ward No.18, Lalsot, District Dausa, Raj.-303503.
5. Ashish Kumar Meena S/o Ram Singh Meena, Aged About 27 Years, R/o House No.165, Opp. K. D. Central Academy School, Meena Colony Lata House Street Udai Mob, District Sawaimadhopur, Raj.-322201.
6. Pinki Dewana D/o Prabhu Lal Meena, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Kushalpura, Post Saiwar, Tehsil Jamwaragarh, District Jaipur, Raj.-302027.
7. Sharmila Meena D/o Hemraj Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Bandha, Post Lorwara, Tehsil Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur, Raj.-322701.
8. Ritesh Kumar Sharma S/o Deen Dayal Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Chipi Mohalla, Village Post Bhandarej Dausa, District Dausa, Raj.-303501.
9. Ravindra Chouhan S/o Vijay Kumar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ward No.32, Bhami Basti Dabla Road, District Churu, Raj.-331001.
10. Mahendra Kumar S/o Basti Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Arat Ka Jav, Siwana, Raj.-344044.
11. Yatendra Kumar Tailor S/o Vishwabandhu Tailor, Aged About 31 Years, R/o H.n. 26, Shiv Colony, Devpura, District Bundi, Raj.-323001.
12. Balwant Lakshkar S/o Ramji Lal Lakshkar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Toonga, Post Toonga, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur, Raj.-303302.
13. Mohit Kumar Jain S/o Ashok Jain, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Bonl, Post Bonl, Tehsil Todabhim, District Karauli, Raj.-321611.
14. Hariram Saran S/o Ram Chandra, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Gadhwala Bikaner, District Bikaner, Raj.-334001.
15. Lokesh Saini S/o Ghasi Ram Nagra, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Mor, Tehsil Todaraisingh, Via Malpura, District Tonk, Raj.-304502.
16. Shiv Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Shree Ram Ki Nangal, Sanganer, District Jaipur, Raj.
-302022.
17. Dhudi Lal Khorwal S/o Panchu Ram Raigar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vill. Kela Ka Bas, Post Behlod, Distt. Jaipur Raj.
-303120 (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (12 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
18. Ramavtar Aludiya S/o Gopal Aludiya, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vill. Mohini, Post Lawa Via Diggi, Teh. Peeplu, Distt. Tonk Raj. -304504
19. Pukhraj S/o Thakra Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vill.
Ranasar Khurd, Teh. Gudamalani, Distt. Barmer , Raj.
-344033
20. Priya Janu D/o Vijay Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vill. Charan Singh Nagar, Distt. Jhunjhunu 333026 (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur, 302005.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Secretary, Rajya Krishi Prabandh Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura, Jaipur-302018.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 870/2025
1. Dinesh Kumar Saini S/o Bhagirath Lal Saini, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 146 Pratap Colony, Nai Ki Thadi, Jamwa Ramgarh Road, Jaipur, 302027
2. Krishan Kumar Sharma W/o Kailash Chand Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 55-B, Khandelwal Nagar-C, Prem Nagar Pulia, Loniyawas, Jaipur, Amber, Raj. 302031.
3. Shiv Dayal Gurjar S/o Ganesh Lal Gurjar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Panwar Mod, Ambapura, Tonk, Raj- 304804.
4. Lalit Singh S/o Sube Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Shahjadpur Post Jasai, Teh, Mundawar, Alwar, Raj. 301427.
5. Adnan Ahmed S/o Moinuddin, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Plot No. 70. Near Masjid, 22 Godam, Jaipur- 302006.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur 302005.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Secretary, Rajya Krishi Prabandh Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura, Jaipur-302018.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1351/2025
1. Narender Dhaker S/o Maniram Dhaker, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 88, Gummat, Near Prahalad Kund, Hindaun City, Karauli, Rajasthan.
2. Devendra Singh S/o Ghanshyam Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Barkau, Po- Dahra, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
3. Rahul Kumar Garg S/o Anil Kumar Garg, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Gopal Ji Mandir Ke Paas, Weir, Bharatpur, (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (13 of 58) [CW-278/2025] Rajasthan.
4. Surendra Kumar S/o Durgesh Prajapat, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Usha Mandir Ke Paas, Bhiter Wadi, Bayana, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
5. Hariom Jangid, S/o Rajendra Prasad, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 00, Civil Line Sector- 2, Damadam Road, Bayana, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
6. Deepak Kumar Dhakad S/o Bahadur Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Khohra, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
7. Bhojendra Singh S/o Tota Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Mudhera, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Chairman, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1524/2025
1. Kuldeep Ratnu S/o Narpat Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Near Karni Temple, Karni Colony, District Nagaur (Raj.) 341001
2. Ravipal Singh S/o Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vpo Chirani, Teh. Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 333503
3. Vijay Kumar Bhargav S/o Ram Naresh Bhargava, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 100 Feet Road, Hill View Colony, Chhabra District Baran (Raj.) 325220
4. Sah Dev Ram Bera S/o Hukma Ram Bera, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Shekhasani, District Nagaur (Raj.) 341510
5. Deepak Kumar Sharma S/o Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vill. Jagrampura, Post Meena Koleta, Teh. Bamanwas, Distt. Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) 322211
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur, 302005.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Secretary, Rajya Krishi Prabandh Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura, Jaipur- 302018
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1539/2025 Devendra Nath S/o Shri Budh Nath, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Vpo Netewala Sri Ganganagar, District (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (14 of 58) [CW-278/2025] Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan-335001
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Represented Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Krishi Agriculture Institutional Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur Represented Through Its Secretary.
3. Director, Treasuries And Accounts, Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
4. Parasram Meena, Resident Of Village And Post Malrana Dungar, Shesha, District Sawaimadhopur.
5. Priyanka Verma D/o Shri Kalu Ram Verma, Resident Of Near Darbar School, Nehru Colony, Sambharlake, District Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1693/2025
1. Priyanka D/o Bal Chand, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward No.01, Valient Public School Ke Pichhe, Bangla Nagar, District Bikaner, Raj. -334004.
2. Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary S/o Jagdish Narayan Chaudhary, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Sadarampura, Post Thali, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur, Raj. -303901.
3. Yashana Kumari D/o Raman Lal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vpo Milakpur, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur, Raj.
-321302.
4. Rajesh S/o Gordhan Lal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Basni Kaviyan, Post Chanwandia Kallan, Viakushalpura, District Pali, Raj. -306305.
5. Aman Meena S/o Kailash Chand Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Moondoti Meeno Ka Bhera, Post Moondoti, District Jaipur, Raj.-303328.
6. Deepika Gupta D/o Brij Kishore Gupta, Aged About 23 Years, R/o 57 B, Sitaram Bhawan, Shanti Nagar, Ajmer Road, District Jaipur, Raj. -302006.
7. Yash Raj Reel S/o Devi Chand Reel, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Takiya Chandshaha Market Ke Samne, Ghodo Ka Chowk District Jodhpur, Raj. -342001.
8. Shakuntala Rajpurohit D/o Kalyan Singh Rajpurohit, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Mansa Road Kotri, District Bhilwara, Raj. -311603.
9. Sultan Singh Meena S/o Vishambhar Dayal Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vpo Jhareda, The Hindaun City, District Karauli, Raj. -322230.
10. Rahul Gupta S/o Brij Kishore Gupta, Aged About 28 Years, (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (15 of 58) [CW-278/2025] R/o 57 B, Sitaram Bhawan, Shanti Nagar, Ajmer Road, District Jaipur, Raj. -302006.
11. Surbhi Pareek D/o Lalit Kumar Pareek, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 10-C-23, Tilak Nagar, District Bhilwara, Raj.
-311001.
12. Tosif Raza S/o Mohammad Saddiq, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 25-26, Ashrafi Complex, Ahmed Hussain Colony, Behind St. Mathews Church, Rani Road, District Udaipur, Raj. -313001.
13. Gajendra Meena S/o Phool Chand Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 74, Namdev Nagar Benad Road, Boytawala, Jhotwara, District Jaipur, Raj. -302012.
14. Nikita Khichad D/o Ramavatar Khichad, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 34, Balaji Vihar-10, Anokha, Gaon Road, Harmada, District Jaipur, Raj.-302013.
15. Rohit Choudhary S/o Suresh Choudhary, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 368, Chhipo Ka Mohalla, Ayad District Udaipur, Raj.-313001.
16. Deepak Kumar Meghwal S/o Poonam Chandra, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 00, Village Achalpura, Meghwal Mohalla, Semarthali, Chhotisadri, Tehsil Chotisadari, District Pratapgarh, Raj.-312604.
17. Niranjan Meena S/o Ramraj Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Kiradi, Post Hadoti, Tehsil Sapotra, District Karauli, Raj.-322033.
18. Himanshu Kaswan S/o Krishan Gopal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Dhandhlas Uda, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur, Raj.-341510.
19. Vikram Singh Panwar S/o Bhoor Singh Panwar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vill. Basani Kaviyan, Post Chawandia Kallan, Teh. Raipur, Distt. Pali Raj. - 306305
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur, 302005.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Secretary, Rajya Krishi Prabandh Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura, Jaipur-302018.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1849/2025 Mool Chand Mandawat S/o Shri Prakash Chand, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Rajor Karauli, Bhandari Anduruni, State- Rajasthan- 322238.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM)[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (16 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
2. Department Of Treasuries And Accounts, Through Director, Jyothi Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1865/2025
1. Rincal D/o Dinesh Kaswan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o A-
73 B, Dadhichi Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Vijay Pal S/o Ram Chandar Khichar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vpo Jaisingh Desar, Magra, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Department Of Treasuries And Accounts, Jyoti Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2658/2025 Komal Yadav D/o Gokul Prasad Yadav, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Nangal Tulsidas, Post Bhanpur Kalan, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Via Amer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Department Of Treasuries And Accounts, Jyoti Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2796/2025 Jyotsna Khinchi D/o Rameshwar Khinchi, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 51 Vasundhara Vihar Baran Road Borkhera Kota Rajasthan 324001
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM)[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (17 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
2. Department Of Treasuries And Accounts, Through Director, Jyothi Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 614/2025
1. Gajendra Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Plot No. 18 Shiv Nagar, Near Aryan International School, Kishorepura Road Hathoj, District Jaipur. Presently Working As Clerk Grade-Second In The O/o Additional Senior Civil Judge And Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan-First.
2. Vikram Singh S/o Shri Nand Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Panlawa, Lachhmangarh, District- Sikar, Rajasthan. Presently Working As Clerk Grade-Ii In The O/o District And Session Judge, Sikar.
3. Rahul Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Satya Narayan Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 142B, Aarya Nagar Vistar, Dadi Ka Fatak, Nearby Aanchal Paridhan, Murlipura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. Presently Working As Clerk Grade-Second In The O/o Judicial Magistrate No.-13, Jaipur Metropolitan-First.
4. Sukhram Chaudhary S/o Shri Anda Ram Chaudhary, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 100 Jato Ka Bass Village Post Banar, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Presently Working As Junior Assistant In The O/o District Legal Services Authority, District Jodhpur.
5. Bhoopendra Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Premnagar Post Mandha Tehsil Paota, District Jaipur. Presently Working As Clerk Grdae- Ii In The O/o Adj-05, Jaipur Metropolitan-Ii.
6. Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri Amra Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Near Mundra Circle, Jodhpur Road, Behind P.w.d. Office, Pipar City, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Presently Working As Junior Assistant In The O/o District Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur.
7. Amardeep S/o Shri Asha Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Paliyas, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. Presently Working As Clerk Grade-I In The O/o District And Session Judge, Ajmer.
8. Arvind Kachchhawah S/o Shri Dhanraj Kachchhawah, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Maliyon Ka Uguna Bass, Pipar City, Jodhpur. Presently Working As Clerk Grade-Ii In The O/o Judicial Magistrate-09, Jodhpur Metropolitan.
9. Indra Jeet S/o Shri Sayar Chand, Aged About 27 Years, (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (18 of 58) [CW-278/2025] R/o 09, Maliyon Ka Bass, Khurkhura Khurd, Tehsil Mundwa Nagaur, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. Presently Working As Clerk Grade-Ii In The O/o Gram Nyayalaya, Jayla, Merta, Rajasthan.
10. Vikas S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Vpo Khandwa The Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. Presently Working As Clerk Grade-Ii In The O/o District And Session Judge, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Training, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat Jaipur.
3. The Director, Treasury And Accounts Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 697/2025
1. Somendra Joshi S/o Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Garhi, Post Morda, Tehsil Todabhim, District Karauli (Rajasthan).
2. Nirbhay Singh S/o Shri Ramkumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Sewar, Heera Pansari Ki Gali, Tehsil Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
3. Hemendra Kumar S/o Bhagirath Tanwar, Aged About 44 Years, R/o 150, Mill Colony, Opp. Railway Station, Beawar, District Ajmer. (Rajasthan).
4. Sandeep Godara S/o Sohan Lal Godara, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Godara Sadar, Patel Nagar, Old Shivbari Road, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. Prabhakar Dandotiya S/o Shri Ramakant Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Dandotiya Sadan, Near City Jublie Hall, Patpara Road, District Dholpur (Rajasthan).
6. Rishabh Jain S/o Jinendra Kumar Jain, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Plot No. 102, Sector No. 2, Near Shiv Mandir, Opp. New Bus Stand, Housing Board Colony, District Tonk (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (19 of 58) [CW-278/2025] Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat Jaipur.
2. Chairman, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302018.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 904/2025
1. Shubham Singh S/o Lokendra Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Bajrang Nagar, In Front Of Bhagwan Talkies, Near Kumher Gate, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
2. Rahul Katara S/o Parmanand Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Vpo Dahra, Kumher, Deeg, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Department Of Treasuries And Accounts, Jhoti Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2073/2025 Babita Mew D/o Mohan Lal Mew, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Gudha Salt, District Nagaur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Chairman, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302018.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2080/2025
1. Manisha Meena D/o Halka Ram Meena, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village- Gurjar Ganvada, Hindaun City, Karauli Rajasthan 322234.
2. Mukesh Kumar Regar S/o Laxman Lal Regar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Barla, Tehsil Kotri, District Bhilwara Rajasthan 311011.
3. Aman Kant Jatav S/o Durga Prasad, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Chudiya Darwaja, Jatav Basti, Hindaun, (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (20 of 58) [CW-278/2025] Karauli Rajasthan 322230.
4. Bharti Meena D/o Kamal Phool Meena, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Plot No. 98 Behind Lic Bhawan Jaipur Rajasthan 302005.
5. Dinesh Kumar Bunkar S/o Narayan Lal Bunkar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o V/p Barana Teh.(Block)-Asind Barana, Dist. Bhilwara, Rajasthan 311301.
6. Abhijeet Meena S/o Amma Lal Meena, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vill. Rambas Post Hatundi, Teh. Mundawar, Rambas, Alwar, Rajasthan 301427.
7. Mukesh S/o Teja Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vill.
Chachiwad Bara, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Sikar, Rajasthan 332311.
8. Pavan Kumar Tanwar S/o Prahalad Ray Tanwar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Bhagton Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 06 Pachar, Sikar, Rajasthan 332710.
9. Pooja Meena D/o Kripal Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Parvaini, Teh. Reni, District Alwar, Rajasthan 301409.
10. Roopnarayan Prajapat S/o Prahalad Prajapat, Aged About 31 Years, R/o - V/p Kakor Teh. Uniyara, District Tonk, Rajasthan 304024.
11. Pushpendra Meena S/o Rajendra Singh Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 185 Avadhpuri - 2Nd Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302015.
12. Saloni Khandelwal D/o Ramavtar Khandelwal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Bhagyodai Nagar Iii, Ajmer Road Kekri, District Ajmer, Rajasthan 305404.
13. Sushila Saini D/o Suresh Kumar Saini, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Samod Raod Pakka Bandha Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan 303702.
14. Vishwajit Singh Sisodiya S/o Jai Singh Sisodiya, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 74 -Khaparda Shri Abhay Krishi Farm Udai Bilas Road, Mandawa Khaparda, Dungarpur, Rajasthan 314001.
15. Sumit Kumar Bhatt S/o Laxmi Kant Bhatt, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 9G 7Rc Vyas Colony, District-Bhilwara, Rajasthan 311001.
16. Kiran Verma D/o Narendra Kumar Verma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 33, Keshav Colony Gangori Bazar Jaipur Rajasthan 302002.
17. Ashish Kumar S/o Rajendra Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Near Masjid Baragaon Teh. Udaipurwati, Jhunjhunu Rajasthan.
18. Tarachand Narsiram Khorwal S/o Narsiram Khorwal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Gedha Kalan Dist. Nagaur Rajasthan 341520.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM)[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (21 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
19. Hari Om Saini S/o Narendra Saini, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Laxminarayan Ji Hanuman Ji Mandir Ke Pass Pipal Ke Niche Village Khoti Tehsil Pachphar, Dist. Jhalawar Rajasthan 326502.
20. Suresh Kumar Saini S/o Shish Ram Saini, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Dhani-Kankarala, Village-Gura Dhahar, Teh. Udaipurwati, Dist. Jhunjhunu Rajasthan 333053.
21. Rajni Kumari Lata D/o Suresh Kumar Lata, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Plot No.78 Shivpuri -C Colony Swarn Path Jaipur Rajasthan 302012.
22. Anshu Goyal D/o Sitaram Goyal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Meena Kirshi Farm, In Front Of E-208 Murlipura Scheme Jaipur Rajasthan 302039
23. Manish Devdwal S/o Ghanshyam Devdwal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o V/p Ajmeripura Teh .chaksu Distic Jaipur Rajasthan.
24. Manish Ajay Pal S/o Ramniwas, Aged About 23 Years, R/o 11 Dwd, Gram Panchayat 6,7 Dwd Rawatsar, Hanumangarh Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Department Of Treasuries And Accounts, Through Director, Jyothi Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3702/2025
1. Geeta Bairwa D/o Sitaram Bairwa, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 26 A, Shiv Colony, Saganer Jaipur Rajasthan 302029.
2. Varsha D/o Kalu Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Jarau Kalan Jhintiya Nagaur Merta District Sikar Rajasthan 341513.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Department Of Treasuries And Accounts, Through Director, Jyoti Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM)[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (22 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14560/2024
1. Ashok Kumar Yadav S/o Shree Mangal Chand Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Dhani Gullakhan, Post- Prithampuri, Dist- Sikar, Rajasthan- 332708
2. Suresh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ramkalyan, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Village Hatholi Post Borda Tehsil Pipalada District- Kota
3. Radhakrishan Gocher S/o Shri Mangilal Gocher, Aged About 29 Years, Old Resident Of Ward No. 5 Bhunen Post Kherula Tehsil Digod District- Kota
4. Farhan Mohammad S/o Shri Hasam Ali, Aged About 25 Years, Old Resident Of Ambedkar Colony Badi Basti Pushkar District Ajmer
5. Pramila Kumari D/o Shri Gokul Chand, V.p. Gudli Tehsil Suratgarh District Sri Ganaganagar.
6. Dhan Raj Saini S/o Ghan Shyam Saini, Resident Of Bawadi Wale Balaji Ka Pass Tonk Road Newai District Tonk
7. Meena Yadav D/o Shree Bhagchand Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Dhani- Khariyawali, Vill- Kolwa, Post- Mundru, Dist- Sikar, Rajasthan- 332712
8. Mukesh Kumar Pareek S/o Shree Mahendra Mohan Pareek, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Pareek Mohalla, Shrimadhopur, Dist- Sikar, Rajasthan- 332715
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Director, Treasury, Jyoti Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur
3. The Revenue Board, Ajmer, Through Its Registrar
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur-302018 Through Its Secretary (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (23 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 810/2025
1. Narendra Singh S/o Shri Madan Singh Sonigara, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 227, Gram Chawandian Kalan, Tehsil Jaitaran, District- Pali.
2. Khushal Chand S/o Shri Chandan Mal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Near Panchayat Bhawan, Vpo Bithora Kalan, Tehsil Marwar Junction, District- Pali, (Raj.)
3. Suresh S/o Shri Kishna Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Kuda, Post Panchala, Tehsil Sanchore, District- Jalore, (Raj.)
4. Hemant Sen S/o Shri Arun Dev Sen, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Flat Pr 157 Government Quarter, Housing Board, In Front Of SBI Bank, Pali, (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Krishi Agriculture Institutional Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur Represented Through Its Secretary.
3. Parasram Meena, Resident Of Village And Post Malarna Doongar, Shesha, District Sawaimadhopur.
4. Priyanka Verma D/o Shri Kalu Ram Verma, Resident Of Near Darbar School, Sanbarlake, Dist- Jaipur.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Utkarsh Dubey Mr. Abhay Singh Mr. Kunal Sharma Mr. Ajatshatru Mina with Mr. Movil Jeenwal Mr. Himanshu Kala Mr. Nripraj Bhati Mr. Anand Sharma for Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (24 of 58) [CW-278/2025] Mr. Anoop Pareek with Mr. Parnav Pareek Mr. Tarun Verma for Mr. Shivatma Kumar Tank Mr. Aamir Khan for Mr. Ram Pratap Saini Mr. Sudhir Yadav for Mr. Brajesh Kumar Jatti Mr. Nikhil Kumawat Mr. Kunal Sharma Mr. Mohammad Wasim Khan Mr. Vikash Ghosalya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kartikaya Sharma with Mr. Aditya Sharma for Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG Ms. Manju Joshi, AGC with Ms. Deepa Singh Mr. Sandeep Kumar Maheshwari with Ms. Bhavana Ladha Dr. Abhinav Sharma Mr. Shobit Tiwari with Mr. Pushpendra Singh Tanwar Mr. Rohit Tiwari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment REPORTABLE Reserved on: 12/03/2025, 17/03/2025 & 27.03.2025 Pronounced on: 05/05/2025
1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the core controversy requiring adjudication predominantly pertains to the legality and validity of the impugned result dated 17.12.2024 declared by the respondents in pursuance to the examination conducted in furtherance to the advertisement dated 20.06.2023 whereby the respondent-Board had invited applications for the post of Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant.
Although ancillary issues are also raised, the principal question of law revolves around the legality and validity of the impugned (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (25 of 58) [CW-278/2025] result whereby the respondents have included the candidates of Ministerial Employees (hereinafter referred to as 'ME category') by treating their candidature in the SC, ST or General category.
Having regard to the commonality of issues both in law and in fact, and upon consent being recorded from the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court deems it appropriate to treat SBCWP NO. 278/2025 titled as Mohit Soni and Ors. Vs. State Of Rajasthan and Ors. as the lead petition for the purposes of this adjudication.
2. It is, however, considered apposite to clarify at the outset that while there may exist factual variances among the individual petitions constituting the present batch, such discrepancies are confined solely to the narrative factual matrices peculiar to each case. They do not impinge upon or detract from the common questions of law which fall for consideration before this Court. Accordingly, the judgment rendered herein shall apply to all the writ petitions connected and heard together with the lead matter, on a mutatis mutandis basis, subject to necessary adaptation to the individual factual contexts where required.
3. Before proceeding to examine the present petitions on their merits, it is imperative to first delineate the foundational facts and the core issues arising therein. A precise appreciation of the factual matrix and procedural background is essential to contextualize the grievances of the petitioners and the legal questions that fall for adjudication. The salient aspects of the petitions are, therefore, summarized as under:
FACTUAL NARRATIVE:(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (26 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
4. On 21.09.2022 the respondent-Board issued an advertisement (advertisement no. 9/2022) inviting applications from eligible candidates for the Common Eligibility Test -
Graduation Level Examination, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as 'CET'). Consecutively, on 20.06.2023 the respondent-Board issued an advertisement (advertisement no. 2/2023) for recruitment to 5190 posts of Junior Accountant and 198 posts of Tehsil Revenue Accountant. Out of the advertised posts, 12.5% of the vacancies under the non-TSP (Tribal Sub-Plan) area, and three (03) posts under the TSP area, were earmarked for reservation in favor of candidates falling under the ME category.
5. After the receipt of application forms, the respondents, on 06.12.2023, declared the cut-off marks based on CET scores.
Distinct cutoff marks were prescribed for different categories, namely, General, Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), Most Backward Classes (MBC), and special categories including the ME category. Notably, the cutoff marks under the ME category were determined at 31.8792, which was substantially lower than the cutoffs prescribed for the other categories.
6. Thereafter, on 20.12.2023, the respondent-Board issued the list of candidates eligible to appear for the Main Examination for the posts of Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant. The said Main Examination was conducted on 11.02.2024. Subsequent thereto, on 27.06.2024, the respondents declared the category-wise cutoffs and called candidates, twice the number of advertised vacancies, for the process of document (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (27 of 58) [CW-278/2025] verification. The cutoffs declared for various categories were illustratively as follows: SC (General) - 447.46, SC (Female) -
319.30, OBC (General) - 555.61, OBC (Female) - 461.30, and for the ME category, the cutoff was fixed at 519.12.
7. The controversy in the present petitions emanated when it came to light that certain candidates, who have initially secured eligibility to appear for the Main Examination by availing the relaxed cutoff of 31.8792 applicable to the ME category, were subsequently considered in categories such as General, SC, ST, OBC, and MBC at the stages of main examination evaluation, document verification, and final selection. The grievance of the petitioners is that these candidates, despite failing to meet the higher cutoff marks determined for the ME category at the stage of the Main Examination (i.e. 519.12), were improperly called for document verification and included in the selection process.
8. Representations were submitted before the respondents by the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates, contending that candidates who had availed themselves of the initial benefit of relaxed standards under the ME category could not subsequently migrate to and claim selection under other reserved categories, and that such action amounted to conferring upon them the impermissible 'benefit of double reservation'. It was specifically asserted that such candidates, being ineligible in terms of the prescribed cutoffs, ought to be excluded at the stage of document verification itself.
9. In view of the above, the petitioners assail the final merit list declared on 17.12.2024, contending that the same is (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (28 of 58) [CW-278/2025] unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, and violative of their rights, inasmuch as it deprives them and similarly situated candidates of fair consideration for appointment, and confers unlawful advantage upon ineligible candidates.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the present controversy necessitates adjudication upon substantial questions of law, inter alia, as follows:
A. Whether candidates who availed the benefit of relaxed standards under the Common Eligibility Test (CET) should necessarily be retained within the same category at the stage of the Main Written Examination, as mandated by Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Common Eligibility Test Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CET Rules, 2022')?
B. Whether a candidate who, by availing the benefit of the ME category, qualified at the CET stage with lower marks, could subsequently seek consideration under their original categories (such as SC, ST, OBC, etc.) during the Main Examination or at later stages of the recruitment process, despite not meeting the requisite cutoff prescribed for the ME category at the Main Examination for the posts of Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant Services?
C. In context of such a situation, would the exclusion of a person who is selected under a ME category (Horizontal) in preliminary examination, but in main examination has not qualified under the ME category, while qualifying under the respective vertical reservation category amount to a violation of (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (29 of 58) [CW-278/2025] the fundamental rights as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
11. In support of these propositions, learned counsel placed substantial reliance upon Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the constitutional guarantee of equality and protection against arbitrariness in public employment. Attention was drawn to Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Accountant Services Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1963'), as well as the terms of the advertisement dated 20.06.2023, wherein reservation for the ME category was prescribed at 12.5% on a horizontal basis, without any further bifurcation into SC, ST, OBC, or other vertical categories, akin to the reservation pattern applicable for ex-
servicemen category.
12. Further reliance was placed upon the proviso to Rule 6 of the CET Rules, 2022, which stipulates that where relaxed standards are applied for calculating lesser than fifteen times the number of advertised posts for the purposes of cutoff for appearance in the Main Examination, such relaxation must operate strictly within the respective category. Consecutively, it was contended that from a bare perusal of the provisions of Rule 6 of the CET Rules, 2022 it can be deduced that the state government has considered the category of ME as a reservation, and the same falls under the category of horizontal reservation as that same cut across all the vertical categories. It was thus contended that the migration or shifting of candidates availing relaxed standards under the ME category into vertical categories (such as (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (30 of 58) [CW-278/2025] SC/ST/OBC) for the purpose of selection was impermissible.
Learned counsel had further argued that such an arbitrary and illegal approach by the respondents has seriously prejudiced their rights and fair chance of selection.
13. In continuation, it was urged that applying the principle of literal interpretation, as consistently upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents were obligated to adhere strictly to the express language of the statute. Nevertheless, in the absence of any ambiguity in the statutory scheme, no deviation or expansive interpretation was permissible. Accordingly, candidates who had availed horizontal reservation benefits (ME category) could not be permitted to subsequently claim vertical reservation benefits (SC/ST/OBC) in violation of the statutory mandate.
14. It was further apprised that the respondent-Board after considering the non-availability of the required number of candidates, lower down the cut-off of the ME candidates, and have set a distinct cut-off of 31.87 marks, in addition to the various vertical cut-offs for vertical reservation. Resultant to which, certain candidates who did not meet the requisite cut-off in their respective categories could qualify in the ME Category with significantly lower marks.
15. To further demonstrate the prejudice suffered by the petitioners, counsel placed reliance on the manifest injustice caused to the petitioners whilst permitting the 'double reservation' in the selection process in question. The relevant data vis-à-vis the candidates passing the CET examination as per the relaxed standards of ME category is tabulated herein below:
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM)[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (31 of 58) [CW-278/2025] Table of candidate passing the CET examination as per relaxed standard of ME:
S. Name CET Marks Main marks Cut off
No. and category and category marks of
category
(ME)
1. Priyanka 107.2575 504.8061 519.1201
(1684519) SC ME SC
2. Moolchand 149.4868 511.1178 519.1201
Meghwal ME
(1296846) SC
3. Jasvinder 143.2834 470.2289 519.1201
Dhore ME
(1394115) SC
16. In support of the submissions made insofar, learned counsel relied upon a catena of judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, a few amongst others were Arul Nadar vs. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms reported in (1998) 7 SCC 198, reiterating the principle of strict interpretation of unambiguous statutory provisions; Dadi Jagannadham vs. Jammulu Ramulu & Ors. reported in (2001) 7 SCC 71, emphasizing that plain and unambiguous language must be given its ordinary meaning; Jitendra Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 119, holding that migration between categories after availing of reservation benefits is impermissible; Gaurav Pradhan & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (2018) 11 SCC 352, addressing the impermissibility of dual benefits under horizontal and vertical reservations; Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2000) 1 SCC 430, reaffirming the constitutional mandate against double reservation and Sourav and Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.: SBCWP No. 20250/2023.(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (32 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
17. It was then contended that if all the CET would be only an eligibility examination, the separate cut-off of different categories, especially ME category would not be disclosed.
Moreover, disclosing category wise cut-off in CET Examination and taking fifteen times candidates for respective categories itself show that in the final recruitment examination fifteen times candidates will compete within themselves.
18. In view of the foregoing, it was vehemently urged that the impugned selection process and the final merit list dated 17.12.2024, insofar as it permits such impermissible migration and confers unlawful dual benefits, deserves to be quashed and set aside as being unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
a) Submissions made by counsel representing the respondent-State and its instrumentalities:
19. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the respondents drew the attention of this Court to the foundational and material facts relevant for adjudication in the present batch of writ petitions. It was submitted that pursuant to the initial advertisement dated 21.09.2022, an amended requisition (Arthana) was communicated by the respondents vide letter dated 26.12.2022 to the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board" or "RSSB"), requisitioning 5190 posts, inclusive of 3267 vacancies for the post of Junior Accountant. In furtherance thereof, a fresh advertisement dated 20.06.2023 was issued by the Board, in conformity with the provisions contained in (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (33 of 58) [CW-278/2025] the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963 and the Rajasthan Scheduled Area Subordinate Ministerial and Class IV Service (Recruitment and Other Conditions of Service) Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2014").
20. Learned counsel further apprised the Court that the entire selection process in question was conducted and supervised exclusively by the respondent-Board (RSSB) without any interference or role of the State Government. It was contended that every procedural aspect from the issuance of advertisement, amendment of categories, conducting of examinations, to the declaration of final results was administered solely under the aegis of the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board.
21. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
Board submitted that the rules governing the selection process, along with the terms and conditions applicable thereto, were explicitly enunciated in the advertisement itself. All candidates, including the petitioners herein, were fully cognizant of these conditions prior to submission of their respective online application forms. It was urged that the petitioners, having voluntarily participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the governing rules and conditions, and having been unsuccessful therein, cannot now be permitted to assail the process.
Accordingly, it was contended that the instant petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine, being barred by the doctrine of estoppel by conduct.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM)[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (34 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
22. Adverting to the specific facts, it was submitted that pursuant to the office order dated 27.06.2024, a list of provisionally selected candidates comprising 200% of the advertised posts was prepared. Thereafter, as per the circular issued by the Department of Personnel (DOP) dated 22.08.2024, the process of document verification for the said provisionally selected candidates was undertaken by the Treasury and Accounts Department. Consequent thereto, a final list of eligible and selected candidates was prepared, culminating in the declaration of the final result on 17.12.2024. As per the said result, a total of 4759 candidates -- comprising 4257 candidates for the Non-TSP area and 222 candidates for the TSP area were recommended for appointment to the post of Junior Accountant. Similarly, 178 candidates -- comprising 154 candidates for the Non-TSP area and 25 candidates for the TSP area were recommended for appointment to the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant.
Subsequently, vide office order dated 09.01.2025 an additional 207 candidates were recommended for the post of Junior Accountant and 11 candidates for the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant.
23. Insofar as the ME category is concerned, it was submitted that out of 647 seats advertised under the said category, recommendations for 634 selected candidates were already made, and only 13 seats remained vacant in the Non-TSP area. It was clarified that all candidates qualifying under the ME category in the CET Examination were duly considered and selected strictly within the ME category itself in the main (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (35 of 58) [CW-278/2025] examination conducted by the respondent-Board. It was specifically emphasized that no candidates were accommodated or considered belatedly under vertical reservation principles at a later stage.
24. It was further contended that the result declared on 17.12.2024 was strictly in consonance with the Department of Personnel circular dated 24.06.2008, which sets out the general principles regarding reservation in public employment. Particular reliance was placed on point No. 20 of the said circular, which delineates the methodology for preparation of the merit list in direct recruitment. It was thus urged that the selection process and the declaration of result have been carried out in accordance with the governing statutory rules, executive instructions, and in a transparent, fair, and lawful manner, leaving no ground for interference by this Court.
b) Submissions made by counsel representing the private-respondents:
25. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents has vehemently opposed the maintainability of the present writ petitions, asserting that the same are wholly misconceived, bereft of merit, and liable to be dismissed in limine.
26. It was contended that none of the petitioners herein have secured marks above the cutoff prescribed under their respective vertical reservation categories, and therefore, they have failed to qualify on merits. Consequently, they are ineligible (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (36 of 58) [CW-278/2025] to claim any right of appointment under the notified recruitment process. It was further submitted that the selection process involved a structured and multi-staged approach, each phase governed by a distinct cutoff criterion. The learned counsel delineated the following three stages of cutoffs applied during the selection procedure:
26.1 CET Stage Cutoff: The first cutoff arose at the stage of the Common Eligibility Test (CET), which served as a screening examination, whereby candidates who secured marks above the notified cutoff were permitted to fill application forms for the main competitive examination.
26.2 Document Verification Stage Cutoff: The second cutoff was applied at the stage when candidates were shortlisted for document verification, based on the ratio of two times the number of advertised vacancies in each category, in accordance with the applicable norms.
26.3 Final Selection Cutoff: The third and final cutoff was implemented during the preparation of the final merit list, post the conclusion of the competitive examination process.
27. The learned counsel submitted that the entire selection process was governed by three statutory instruments, each applicable at different stages of the recruitment procedure: 27.1 The Rajasthan Common Eligibility Test Rules, 2022, ("CET Rules") 27.2 The Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963 (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (37 of 58) [CW-278/2025] 27.3 The Rajasthan Reservation Act, 2008, formally titled The Rajasthan Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Special Backward Classes and Economically Backward Classes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions in the State and of Appointments and Posts in Services under the State) Act, 2008.
28. It was further contended that as per the proviso to Rule 6 of the CET Rules, it is mandatory that 15 times the number of advertised posts be shortlisted for the main competitive examination. However, where such number of candidates is not available strictly on merit, relaxation is permissible under the said proviso, category-wise, to achieve the object of the Rule and to ensure broad-based participation up to the prescribed limit. It is an admitted position by both parties that candidates possessing marks lower than the minimum cutoff prescribed for the ME category were permitted to fill forms for the main examination in order to fulfill the mandatory 15 times ratio. Such relaxation, was made uniformly across the category to avoid any deficiency in the pool of eligible candidates.
29. Learned counsel strenuously argued that the nature and object of the CET and the subsequent main competitive examinations for Junior Accountant (JRA) and Tehsil Revenue Accountant (TRA) are fundamentally distinct. While the CET is a screening or eligibility test designed to reduce the administrative burden and filter candidates on the basis of minimum qualifications, the main examination is a substantive selection test governed by separate service rules, namely the Rules of 1963, (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (38 of 58) [CW-278/2025] which have an entirely different object and framework. Therefore, any suggestion of double reservation or overlapping applicability of the reservation policy between the CET and main examination is wholly misconceived and erroneous.
30. It was further urged that Rule 6 read with Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963, mandates that 12.5% of the advertised posts be earmarked for candidates belonging to the ME category. In furtherance of this objective, and notwithstanding the lower marks obtained by some of the candidates in the CET, Rule 6 of the CET Rules was invoked to permit their participation in the main examination, thereby satisfying the reservation mandate under the Rules of 1963.
31. The learned counsel also referred to the DoP Circular dated 24.06.2008, particularly Para 20 thereof, which outlines the procedure for preparation of merit lists in direct recruitment, incorporating both vertical and horizontal reservations. It was submitted that the selection process adhered strictly to these guidelines, and the interplay of both reservation types was managed in accordance with settled legal principles. In support of this submission, reliance was placed upon a catena of authoritative judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including:
Vikas Shankla v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal: 2016 AIR (SC) 5265, Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.: (2010) 3 SCC 119, Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P.:(2021) 4 SCC 542 Ram Naresh v. State of M.P.: AIR 2024 SC 4252, and Rajesh Kumar Daria v. RPSC: AIR 2007 SC 3127 amongst others.(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (39 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
32. The learned counsel further submitted that the CET and the main competitive examination operate on different statutory planes and cannot be equated or intermingled. While the CET serves to assess minimum eligibility without applying the reservation matrix, the main examination involves merit-based selection with full application of reservation policies, both vertical and horizontal, consistent with Article 309 of the Constitution of India and prevailing recruitment norms.
33. On the issue of "migration", it was submitted that the present case does not involve migration in the legal sense, which occurs when candidates from reserved categories secure selection in the unreserved/general category on merit. It was clarified that the petitioners have incorrectly construed the concept of reservation, relaxation, exemption, and preference, thereby giving rise to baseless allegations of irregularity.
34. In this regard reliance was placed on the landmark judgment of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court exhaustively delineated the legal contours of reservation in public employment.
It was argued that reservation is a beneficial provision and horizontal reservation cannot operate in isolation, divorced from vertical reservation. In this context, attention was drawn to the structure of the application form, which categorically demarcates "General Category" (vertical reservation) and "Special Category"
(horizontal reservation), thereby evidencing the composite structure of the reservation scheme.(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (40 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
35. In light of the above, it was submitted that the entire selection process was undertaken in strict compliance with the applicable rules, executive instructions, and judicial precedents.
The petitioners, having failed to qualify on merit within their respective categories and having participated in the process without protest, cannot now be permitted to challenge the process. Accordingly, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:
36. Having heard the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsel for all the parties, upon a perusal of the material available on record, scanning the judgments cited at the Bar and juxtaposing the contentions noted herein above, this Court at the outset is of the view that the following issues arise for consideration before this Court:
36.1 Whether the action of the respondents in permitting candidates belonging to the Ministerial Employee (ME) category who had initially availed the benefit of a substantially relaxed cutoff under the ME category at the Common Eligibility Test (CET) stage to migrate and claim selection under other reserved categories (such as SC, ST, OBC, or MBC) at the Main Examination and subsequent stages, is legal, valid, and sustainable in law. 36.2 Whether candidates who availed the benefit of relaxed eligibility standards under the ME category at the preliminary stage, but failed to meet the requisite cutoffs prescribed for the ME category at the Main Examination stage, could be permitted to (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (41 of 58) [CW-278/2025] participate in the document verification process or be included in the final selection list.
36.3 Whether the inclusion of such candidates in the final merit list dated 17.12.2024 results in an illegal conferment of dual benefits (commonly referred to as "double reservation"), and whether such inclusion vitiates the selection process as being arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
36.4 Whether the final merit list dated 17.12.2024 is liable to be quashed and set aside, and if so, what consequential directions, if any, are required to be issued to ensure a lawful and equitable selection process.
37. The matter before this Court pertains to the process of recruitment for the post of Junior Accountant in the State of Rajasthan, governed by the Rules of 1963 and CET Rules, 2022. It is not in dispute that an advertisement was issued on 20.06.2023 for the recruitment to the post of Junior Accountant pursuant to the CET Rules, 2022. The said advertisement explicitly invoked the applicability of the provisions of the CET Rules, 2022 read with the Rules of 1963.
38. As a conjoint observation and deduction vis-à-vis the issues noted hereinabove it is opined that as per Rule 6 (iii) of the Rules of 1963, it is unequivocally provided that "12.5% of the total number of posts of Junior Accountant shall be filled in by way of direct recruitment from amongst the Ministerial Staff holding the posts in various departments of the Government of Rajasthan, who are substantively appointed in the cadre and who are (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (42 of 58) [CW-278/2025] otherwise eligible under the Rules." This provision is a mandatory reservation in favor of the ministerial cadre and is to be interpreted strictly in accordance with the Rules. The relevant Rule is reproduced herein below:
"6. Method of Recruitment;-
1.---
(i) ---
(ii) ---
(iii) Provided also further that 12.5 % of the post of Junior Accountants to be filled in by direct recruitment shall be reserved for being filled in from amongst the ministerial staff of all the departments of the Government holding a post in Cadre substantively, subject to their being found otherwise eligible for such recruitment under the Rules. This reservation shall be carried forward only to the next succeeding year."
39. During the course of proceedings, the respondents -
State Government and the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, in their respective replies, have admitted on record that the process of competitive examination and subsequent main examination was carried out in accordance with the applicable reservation mechanism. It has further been brought to the notice of this Court that the State and the Board have adhered to the directives as contained in the Circular dated 24.06.2008, issued by the DoP, which lays down the guidelines for the implementation of reservation in selection and recruitment processes. The said Circular prescribes the method of application of horizontal and vertical reservations and is binding upon all recruiting authorities of the State. The compliance with the reservation mechanism as (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (43 of 58) [CW-278/2025] per the Circular dated 24.06.2008, in conjunction with the statutory prescription under Rule 6(iii) of the Rules of 1963, reflects that the selection process in hand is carried out in a manner consistent with the prevailing legal and administrative framework. The DoP Circular dated 24.06.2008 provides the procedural mechanism for preparing the merit list and effecting reservation in direct recruitment. Clause 20.3 of the Circular explicitly mandates that horizontal reservations are to be adjusted against vertical categories post the selection process. In the instant matter, the recruiting agency has adhered to the framework laid down by the Circular and relevant rules. For the sake of convenience the relevant provision for preparation of the merit list in direct recruitment is reiterated herein below:
"20. Preparation of merit list in direct recruitment 20.1 We now come to the question of how to select candidates so that all the categories get the number of posts reserved for them. Separate lists of candidates in the order of their merit should be made for each category for which there is reservation - SC, ST, OBC, OC women, SC women, ST women, OBC Women, PD, ES, NG and SP - as well a common list. In the first round, first of all, the OC category candidates as are the number of vacancies in the OC category should be selected. Any member of the SC/ST/OBC category, appearing in this list should be counted towards OC category unless he has taken some concession admissible to of SC, ST these categories other than concession in fees. Thereafter, list of SC. ST and OBC candidates should be prepared from the remaining candidates in the lists and OBC categories respectively.(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (44 of 58) [CW-278/2025] 20.2 In the second round, it should be ensured that women get adequate vacancies. If the number of SC women is less than the number of vacancies reserved for them, the shortfall should be made up by selecting SC women from amongst the remaining SC women in the SC women list, in order of merit, and deleting an equal number of males from the selected list of SC category candidates in reverse order of their merit. Similar exercise should be done for the ST, OBC and then the open competition lists.
20.3 Reservation for the persons with disabilities, ex- servicemen, non-gazetted employees and sports persons is also horizontal and should be then ensured. Thus, from amongst these four lists, the shortfall, if any, of persons with disabilities, ex-servicemen, non- gazetted employees and sports persons should be calculated. In the third round, this shortfall should be made up by selecting sufficient number of persons from the lists of these categories, in order of merit, so as to fulfill the shortfall. For each person so selected, one person (the least meritorious) of same category as the person selected should be removed from the list of that category made in the second round. If there is no shortfall in any of these categories viz persons with disabilities ex-servicemen, non-gazetted employees and sports persons, there is no need to make any extra selection."
40. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the provision for 12.5% reservation in favor of ministerial staff under Rule 6(iii) of the Rules of 1963 is not a mere enabling provision but a statutory mandate, and any deviation from its implementation would vitiate the recruitment process to that extent. In view of the above, this Court holds that the reservation granted to the ministerial staff under Rule 6(iii) of the 1963 Rules (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (45 of 58) [CW-278/2025] is valid, enforceable, and must be implemented in strict compliance during the recruitment process undertaken in furtherance to the advertisement dated 20.06.2023.
41. The CET Rules, 2022 govern the conduct of the Common Eligibility Test, which serves as a preliminary qualifying examination for recruitment to various posts under Schedule I and II. Rule 6 of the CET Rules, 2022 confers discretion upon the recruiting agency to relax the qualifying marks for reserved category candidates in the event that a sufficient number of candidates (15 times the number of vacancies) do not qualify under general standards. This relaxation is intended to ensure adequate representation in the main examination.
42. The recruitment agency, while implementing the reservation framework, devised application forms distinguishing candidates under two broad headings:
(i) General Category candidates covered under vertical reservation (SC/ST/OBC)
(ii) Special Category candidates under horizontal reservation (ME category).
This bifurcation, being in line with the constitutional provisions under Articles 16(1) and 16(4), and supported by the Department of Personnel (DoP) Circular dated 24.06.2008, appropriately accounted for both vertical and horizontal reservations.
43. The grievance of the petitioners that ME category candidates were permitted to appear in the main examination with relaxed standards and later migrated to other reserved categories (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (46 of 58) [CW-278/2025] such as SC/ST/OBC, thereby availing the benefit of double reservation, is carefully examined. It is noted that neither the advertisement nor the governing rules explicitly prohibit ME category candidates from being considered under SC/ST/OBC category, if they otherwise qualify on merit. In this context, such consideration does not amount to migration or double reservation but rather reflects the integration of horizontal reservation within vertical categories, as recognized by constitutional jurisprudence.
44. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saurav Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(2021) 4 SCC 542], wherein the principles governing the interplay of horizontal and vertical reservations were clarified. Paras 36, 56, and 58 of the said judgment categorically uphold the adjustment of horizontally reserved candidates (such as women or ME category) against vertical categories upon their qualifying on merit, without such adjustment being treated as double reservation. The emphasized paragraphs are reproduced herein below:
"36. Finally, we must say that the steps indicated by the High Court of Gujarat in para 56 of its judgment in Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai contemplate the correct and appropriate procedure for considering and giving effect to both vertical and horizontal reservations. The illustration given by us deals with only one possible dimension. There could be multiple such possibilities. Even going by the present illustration, the first female candidate allocated in the vertical column for Scheduled Tribes may have secured higher position than the candidate at Serial No.64. In that event said candidate must be shifted from the category of Scheduled Tribes (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (47 of 58) [CW-278/2025] to Open / General category causing a resultant vacancy in the vertical column of Scheduled Tribes. Such vacancy must then ensure to the benefit of the candidate in the Waiting List for Scheduled Tribes - Female. The steps indicated by Gujarat High Court will take care of every such possibility. It is true that the exercise of laying down a procedure must necessarily be left to the concerned authorities but we may observe that one set out in said judgment will certainly satisfy all claims and will not lead to any incongruity as highlighted by us in the preceding paragraphs.
56. The judgments in Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of UP, Swati Gupta Vs. State of UP and Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of UP, were decisions which arose from recruitment cases concerning the state of UP. In fact in Jitendra Kumar Singh, the court even considered the question of validity of the horizontal reservations in favour of women, as well as the Government Order of 26.2.1999. The latest in that series is a decision of this court in Anupal Singh V. State of U.P, where the court had to consider, as one of the contentions raised, the question similar to the one which arises for consideration in this case, i.e. whether social category horizontal candidates can fill horizontal category vacancies. The court recorded the facts and noticed the contentions of the parties, in the following manner (para 62):
"62. The contention of the private respondents is that as per the statutory requirement, the horizontal reserved vacancies were unfilled and those unfilled vacancies of horizontal category were filled by vertical reservation candidates/other category candidates, which is in violation of the statutory provisions vitiating the selection process. On behalf of the U.P. (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (48 of 58) [CW-278/2025] Public Service Commission, Mr Shrish Kumar Misra, learned counsel has furnished the details as to the number of vacancies reserved for horizontal category and the number of candidates found suitable and placed in the respective categories. The said details are as under:
Category No. of Vacancies No. of selected
candidates
Women 1325 156
Dependents of 132 45
Freedom Fighters
Ex-Servicemen 330 NIL
Partially Blind 84 84
Partially deaf 84 57
One-arm 42 42
One-leg 42 42
On behalf of the U.P. Public Service
Commission, it was submitted that one of the policies of the State Government regarding horizontal reservation is that, if the suitable candidates for filling the vacancies reserved for such posts of horizontal reservation are not available and the same are not carried forward; they are filled up by other suitable candidates from amongst the candidates belonging to vertically reserved categories according to their merit. It was submitted that unfilled horizontal reservation vacancies were thus filled up by suitable candidates of respective vertical categories according to their merit which is as per the policy of the Government. The High Court was not right in finding fault with the filling up of vacancies reserved for horizontal reservation with other candidates of respective vertical (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (49 of 58) [CW-278/2025] reservation." Thereafter the court recorded its conclusions, in the following terms:
"84.6. The filling up of the unfilled horizontal reservation by the candidates from the respective vertical reservation is in accordance with the policy of the Government and the same cannot be faulted with."
58. 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."
45. Additionally, reliance is placed upon the ratio encapsulated in Vikas Shankla (Supra) and paras 60 and 62 thereof, which further reinforce the legality of such procedural integration, particularly when it facilitates the objectives of inclusive representation and non-discrimination.
"60. Having regard to the respective submissions noted above, first aspect that needs consideration is as to whether relaxation in TET pass marks would amount to concession in the recruitment process. The High Court has held to be so on the premise that para 9(a) dealing with such relaxation in TET marks forms part of the document which relates to the recruitment (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (50 of 58) [CW-278/2025] procedure. It is difficult to accept this rationale or analogy. Passing of TET examination is a condition of eligibility for appointment as a teacher. It is a necessary qualification without which a candidate is not eligible to be considered for appointment. This was clearly mentioned in guidelines/notification dated February 11, 2011. These guidelines pertain to conducting of TET. Basic features whereof have already been pointed out above. Even para 9 which provides for concessions that can be given to certain reserved categories deals with 'qualifying marks' that is to be obtained in TET examination. Thus, a person who passes TET examination becomes eligible to participate in the selection process as and when such selection process for filling up of the posts of primary teachers is to be undertaken by the State. On the other hand, when it comes to recruitment of teachers, the method for appointment of teachers is altogether different. Here, merit list of successful candidates is to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained under different heads. One of the heads is marks in TET. So far as this head is concerned, 20% of the marks obtained in TET are to be assigned to each candidate. Therefore, those reserved category candidates who secured lesser marks in TET would naturally get less marks under this head. We like to demonstrate it with an example. Suppose a reserved category candidate obtains 53 marks in TET, he is treated as having qualified TET. However, when he is considered for selection to the post of primary teacher, in respect of allocation of marks he will get 20% marks for TET. As against him, a general candidate who secures 70 marks in TET shall be awarded 14 marks in recruitment process. Thus, on the basis of TET marks reserved category candidate has not got any advantage while considering his candidature for the post. On the (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (51 of 58) [CW-278/2025] contrary, "level playing field" is maintained whereby a person securing higher marks in TET, whether belonging to general category or reserved category, is allocated higher marks in respect of 20% of TET marks. Thus, in recruitment process no weightage or concession is given and allocation of 20% of TET marks is applied across the board. Therefore, the High Court is not correct in observing that concession was given in the recruitment process on the basis of relaxation in TET.
62. In Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., this Court has very categorically held that relaxations given in educational qualifications etc. making a person eligible to participate in selection process would not be treated as availing benefits in the recruitment/employment and the benefits envisaged have to be those which have direct relation to recruitment/employment and are relatable to the jovial relationship of employer and employee. It is also clarified that such benefits must occur from and should be post 'level playing field'. We would like to reproduce the following discussion from the said judgment touching upon the aforesaid aspects:
"48. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered opinion that the submissions of the appellants that relaxation in fee or age would deprive the candidates belonging to the reserved category of an opportunity to compete against the general category candidates is without any foundation. It is to be noticed that the reserved category candidates have not been given any advantage in the selection process. All the candidates had to appear in the same written test (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (52 of 58) [CW-278/2025] and face the same interview. It is therefore quite apparent that the concession in fee and age relaxation only enabled certain candidates belonging to the reserved category to fall within the zone of consideration. The concession in age did not in any manner tilt the balance in favour of the reserved category candidates, in the preparation of final merit/select list.
49. It is permissible for the State in view of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 38 of the Constitution of India to make suitable provisions in law to eradicate the disadvantages of candidates belonging to socially and educationally backward classes. Reservations are a mode to achieve the equality of opportunity guaranteed under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Concessions and relaxations in fee or age provided to the reserved category candidates to enable them to compete and seek benefit of reservation, is merely an aid to reservation. The concessions and relaxations place the candidates on a par with general category candidates.
It is only thereafter the merit of the candidates is to be determined without any further concessions in favour of the reserved category candidates. xx xx xx
75. In our opinion, the relaxation in age does not in any manner upset the "level playing field". It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that relaxation in age or the concession in fee would in any manner be infringement of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. These concessions are provisions pertaining to (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (53 of 58) [CW-278/2025] the eligibility of a candidate to appear in the competitive examination. At the time when the concessions are availed, the open competition has not commenced. It commences when all the candidates who fulfill the eligibility conditions, namely, qualifications, age, preliminary written test and physical test are permitted to sit in the main written examination. With age relaxation and the fee concession, the reserved candidates are merely brought within the zone of consideration, so that they can participate in the open competition on merit. Once the candidate participates in the written examination, it is immaterial as to which category, the candidate belongs. All the candidates to be declared eligible had participated in the preliminary test as also in the physical test. It is only thereafter that successful candidates have been permitted to participate in the open competition." It is stated at the cost of repetition that provision of giving 20% marks of TET score was applied to all candidates irrespective of the category to which he/she belongs and, therefore, no concession or relaxation or advantage or benefit was given in this behalf which could disturb the level playing field and tilt advantage in respect of reserved category candidate. On the contrary, the reserved category candidates who had secured less marks in TET examination are given lesser marks in the recruitment process on the application of the formula of allocating 20% marks of TET score. Question No. 3 is answered accordingly.
63. These appeals are accordingly allowed in the manner indicated in this judgment, effect whereof would be as under:
(a) Those reserved category candidates who secured pass marks on the application of relaxed standards as (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (54 of 58) [CW-278/2025] contained in the extant policy of the Government in its communication dated March 23, 2011 to be treated as having qualified TET examination and, thus, eligible to participate in the selection undertaken by the State Government.
(b) Migration from reserved category to general category shall be admissible to those reserved category candidates who secured more marks obtained by the last unreserved category candidates who are selected, subject to the condition that such reserved category candidates did not avail any other special concession. It is clarified that concession of passing marks in TET would not be treated as concession falling in the aforesaid category."
(emphasis supplied)
46. Significantly, the petitioners herein have neither challenged the format of the application form nor the validity of the DoP Circular dated 24.06.2008. Moreover, none of the petitioners in the given case has secured higher marks than the cut-off in their vertical reservation and have filed the present petitions after being unsuccessful in their respective categories, to extract an extra leverage. Therefore, their challenge is not maintainable on procedural or constitutional grounds. Moreover, it is unambiguous that the marks scored by a candidate in the competitive exam for Junior Accountant or Tehsil Revenue Accountant are used to determine the merit which is drawn under a complex process of selection whereas the CET exam can be applied multiple times and there is no bar on the number of (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (55 of 58) [CW-278/2025] attempts, thus leaving no iota of doubt that it is not a part of the selection process.
47. Nevertheless, in the advertisement dated 20.06.2023, the respondent-Board has considered ME category as a separate class and has kept them in the category of horizontal reservation.
The relevant extract from the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"3- dfu'B ys[kkdkj ds fjDr inksa dk oxZokj vkj{k.k fuEu izdkj gS%& ¼d½xSj&vuqlwfpr {ks= dqy lkekU; vuqlwfpr tkfr vuqlwfpr vU; fiNM+k oxZ vfr fiNM+k oxZ vkfFkZd :i ls ckjka ftys dh in tutkfr detksj oxZ lgfj;k tutkfr lke lk fo/k if lk lk fo if l lk fo if l lk fo if l lk fo if l lk fo if lk lk fo if kU; ekU ok jR ekU ekU /k jR ke ekU /k jR ke ekU /k jR ke ekU /k jR ke ekU /k jR ekU ekU /k jR ; ; ; ; ok ; kU ; ok ; kU ; ok ; kU ; ok ; kU ; ok ; ; ; ok ;
efg D efg D ; efg D ; efg D ; efg D ; efg D efg D
yk rk yk rk yk rk yk rk yk rk yk rk yk rk
4911 1242 355 141 35 545 156 62 15 40 117 46 11 71 205 81 20 17 49 20 4 34 99 39 9 17 5 1
9 4 1 3
{kSfrt vkj{k.k (HORIZONTAL RESERVATION) fnO;kaxtu ea=kyf;d HkwriwoZ lSfud mRd`"V deZpkjh f[kykM+h (OA, BA, 12.5% OL, BL, ASD, LV D, HH OAL, CP, M.I., UR EWS MBC OBC SC ST TOTAL LC, DW, S.L.D. AAV) 49 49 49 49 613 221 61 30 127 97 72 608 98 ¼[k½ vuqlwfpr {ks= dqy in lkekU; vuqlwfpr tkfr vuqlwfpr tutkfr lkekU; lkekU; fo/kok ifjR;Drk lkekU; lkekU; fo/kok ifjR;Drk lkekU; lkekU; fo/kok ifjR;Drk efgyk efgyk efgyk 279 99 29 11 02 10 02 01 00 88 25 10 02 {kSfrt vkj{k.k (HORIZONTAL RESERVATION) fnO;kaxtu ea=kyf;d HkwriwoZ lSfud mRd`"V deZpkjh f[kykM+h 12.5% LV D, HH (OA, BA, ASD, M.I., OL, BL, S.L.D. OAL, CP, UR SC ST TOTAL LC, DW, AAV) 03 03 03 03 34 17 01 15 33 05 4- rglhy jktLo ys[kkdkj ds fjDr inksa dk oxZokj vkj{k.k fuEu izdkj gS%& ¼d½xSj&vuqlwfpr {ks= dq lkekU; vuqlwfpr tkfr vuqlwfpr vU; fiNM+k oxZ vfr fiNM+k oxZ vkfFkZd :i ls ckjka ftys dh y tutkfr detksj oxZ lgfj;k in tutkfr l lk fo ifj l lk fo ifj l lk fo ifj l lk fo ifj l lk fo ifj l lk fo if lk lk f if (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (56 of 58) [CW-278/2025] ke ekU /k R;D ke ekU /k R;D ke ekU /k R;D ke ekU /k R;D ke ekU /k R;D ke ekU /k jR ek ekU o jR kU ; ok rk kU ; ok rk kU ; ok rk kU ; ok rk kU ; ok rk kU ; ok ; U; ; /k ;
; efg ; efg ; efg ; efg ; efg ; efg D efg o D
yk yk yk yk yk yk rk yk k rk
170 43 13 04 1 19 06 2 0 14 05 1 0 25 8 2 0 6 2 0 0 12 04 1 0 2 0 0 0
{kSfrt vkj{k.k (HORIZONTAL RESERVATION) fnO;kaxtu ea=kyf;d HkwriwoZ lSfud mRd`"V deZpkjh f[kykM+h B/LV HI LD/CP MI/MD UR EWS MBC OBC SC ST TOTAL 02 02 02 01 21 9 2 1 4 3 2 21 03 ¼[k½ vuqlwfpr {ks= dqy in lkekU; vuqlwfpr tkfr vuqlwfpr tutkfr lkekU; lkekU; fo/kok ifjR;Drk lkekU; lkekU; fo/kok ifjR;Drk lkekU; lkekU; fo/kok ifjR;Drk efgyk efgyk efgyk 28 10 03 01 00 01 00 00 00 09 03 01 00 {kSfrt vkj{k.k (HORIZONTAL RESERVATION) fnO;kaxtu ea=kyf;d HkwriwoZ lSfud mRd`"V deZpkjh f[kykM+h 12.5% B/LV HI LD/CP MI/MD UR SC ST TOTAL 01 00 00 00 03 02 - 01 03 00 uksV%& 1- vuqlwfpr {ks= ds mDr fjDr inksa ds fy;s dsoy jktLFkku jkT; ds vuqlwfpr {ks= ds LFkkuh; fuoklh gh vkosnu dj ldsaxsA vuqlwfpr {ks= ds vkosnd vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa vuqlwfpr {ks= ds dkWye esa Li"V :i ls vadu djsaA vuqlwfpr {ks= ds dkWye esa vadu ugha djus dh fLFkfr esa muds vkosnu ij vuqlwfpr {ks= ds inksa ds fy;s fopkj ugh fd;k tk;sxkA 2- xSj vuqlwfpr {ks= dh fjfDr;ksa ds fo:) vuqlwfpr {ks= ds fuoklh Hkh vkosnu dj ldsaxsA ;fn vH;FkhZ dk p;u vuqlwfpr {ks= ,oa xSj vuqlwfpr {ks= nksuksa esa gksrk gS rks vH;FkhZ dks nLrkost lR;kiu ds le; viuk fyf[kr esa fodYi izLrqr djuk gksxk fd og vuqlwfpr {ks= ,oa xSj vuqlwfpr {ks= nksuksa esa ls fdl {ks= esa viuk p;u pkgrk gS rFkk fdl {ks= ds vius p;u dks fujLr djokuk pkgrk gSA fodYi izLrqr ugha djus dh fLFkfr esa vH;FkhZ dk vafre p;u vuqlwfpr {ks= esa ekuk tkosxkA 3- efgyk] HkwriwoZ lSufdksa] mRd`"V f[kykM+h ,oa fnO;kaxtuksa ds fy, vkjf{kr inksa dk vkj{k.k n.Mor (HORIZONTAL) ls gksxkA (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (57 of 58) [CW-278/2025] 4- foKkiu tkjh gksus ds mijkUr foKkfir inksa dh la[;k esa deh ;k c<+ksrjh dh tk ldrh gS ,oa vkj{k.k laca/kh izko/kkuksa ds laca/k esa jkT; ljdkj ds uohure fu;eksa ds vuqlkj ifjorZu fd;k tk ldsxkA "
CONCLUSION:
48. In summation of the aforementioned, it can be noted that as per the governing statute (CET Rules) the recruiting agency was bound to call fifteen times candidates of the advertised seats, which specifically provides that the examination was merely to make the candidates appeared therein 'eligible' for applying to the posts advertised in the competitive examinations.
Therefore, since fifteen times candidates were not available for the posts of Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant, the candidates were 'made eligible' to fill the application forms for the competitive examination. Nonetheless, the petitioners are also the candidates having lesser marks than the cut-off and are still 'made eligible' to appear in the mains examination, in adherence of the governing statute; that the Rule 6 read with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1963 further categorically states that 12.5% of the advertised posts shall be filled by the ME category candidates; that the respondents have also made the fact qua the reservation policy unambiguous in the advertisement itself.
49. In view of the above analysis and the well-settled legal principles governing horizontal and vertical reservations, this Court finds no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners.
The recruitment agency has acted within the bounds of statutory provisions, administrative guidelines, and constitutional mandate.
The relaxation of standards for ME category candidates under Rule (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:16562] (58 of 58) [CW-278/2025] 6 of the CET Rules, 2022, the integration of horizontal reservations with vertical categories, and the calling of eligible candidates for document verification pursuant to the order dated 27.06.2024, do not suffer from any legal infirmity.
50. Accordingly, the present batch of petitions being bereft of any merits stand dismissed. The result dated 17.12.2024 is not liable to be quashed or interfered with. No orders are passed as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /495-503,505-512, 570-571, 573, 584-585 and 401 (17.03.2025) (Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:56:58 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)