Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Phoosgir vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 March, 2022
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17265/2021
1. Phoosgir S/o Shri Nayol Gir, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Balasar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
2. Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Krishan Kumar, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Ward No. 06, Vpo Barwali, Tehsil Nohar,
District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
3. Om Prakash Kularia S/o Shri Sita Ram Kularia, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Village Haripura, Post Banara, Tehsil
Taranagar, District Churu, Rajasthan.
4. Rakesh Kumar Swami S/o Shri Kumbhdas, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Ward No. 08, Vpo Phephana, Tehsil Nohar,
District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
5. Surender Kumar S/o Shri Krishan Lal, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Ward No. 07, Kikraliya, Rawatsar, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
6. Hanuman S/o Shri Dungar Das, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Chak 2 Bpsm, Hardaswali, Post Birmana, Tehsil
Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
7. Rajan S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Vpo Inderpura, Tehsil Sangariya, District Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan.
8. Banshi Lal S/o Shri Lal Chand, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Vpo Maleer, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
9. Shrawan Kumar S/o Shri Rajender Kumar, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Ward No. 07, Vpo Bashir, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
10. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Gauri Shankar, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Vpo Kishanpura Uttradha, Tehsil Sangaria,
District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
11. Khushboo Bhanwariya D/o Shri Ganshyam Singh, Aged
About 22 Years, R/o Lalji Ka Bhatta Road, Borunda,
Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
12. Ram Swaroop S/o Shri Chhota Ram Bhanwariya, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Bhanwariyo Ki Dhani, Mahadev
Nagar, Village Borunda, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Agriculture Directorate, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chairman, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 23/03/2022 at 08:39:30 PM)
(2 of 20) [CW-17265/2021]
4. The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17223/2021
1. Gopa Ram S/o Shri Chena Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/
o Rampura, Tehsil Samdari, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
2. Rohitash Yadav S/o Shri Surja Ram Yadav, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Bagada Ki Dhani, Singod Kalan, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Narendra Singh Nathawat S/o Shri Parvat Singh
Nathawat, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vpo Loharwara, Via
Udaipuriya, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Kamlesh Yadav S/o Shri Damodar Parsad Yadav, Aged
About 22 Years, R/o Dhani Kakraliya Wali, Sargoth, Via
Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
5. Deepak Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Gajanand Yadav, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Bichhwalia Ki Dhani, Tehsil Chomu,
Post Nangal Koju, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Manoj Yadav S/o Shri Omprakash Yadav, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Nandhan Neemrana, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
7. Shyam Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Chiranji Lal Gurjar, Aged
About 22 Years, R/o Village Kustala Sawai Madhopur,
District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
8. Madhu Yadav D/o Shri Mahesh Yadav, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Hardev Ki Dhani, Disan, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
9. Gaurav Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Meena,
Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Jagjeevanpur, Tehsil Wair,
District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
10. Vikas Kumar Kulhari S/o Shri Mahesh Kumar Kulhari,
Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Churi Miyan, Tehsil
Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
11. Kuldeep Meena S/o Shri Purushottam Meena, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Village Sarkanya, Post Pachel Kalan, Tehsil
Anta, District Baran, Rajasthan.
12. Kajal Yadav D/o Shri Onkar Mal Yadav, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Dhani Singadawali, Village Arniya, Tehsil
Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
13. Rakesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Gopal Lal Yadav, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Village Pragpura, Post Jaisinghpura,
Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
14. Sitaram Devanda S/o Shri Devi Sahay Devanda, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Malikpur, Via Govindgarh, Tehsil
Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
15. Dinesh Daroga S/o Shri Bardichand Daroga, Aged About
23 Years, R/o Borda, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 23/03/2022 at 08:39:30 PM)
(3 of 20) [CW-17265/2021]
16. Lal Chand Yadav S/o Shri Harnath Yadav, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Aastada, Chomu, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Agriculture Directorate, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chairman, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17238/2021
1. Gursevak Singh S/o Shri Malkeet Singh, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Ward No. 07, Vpo Malarampura, Tehsil
Sangariya, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
2. Sachin Kumar S/o Shri Shish Pal, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Ward No. 01, Kulchander Tehsil Tibbi, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
3. Prem Kumar Bhambhu S/o Shri Ram Chander Bhambhu,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward No. 03, Dantour Mandi,
Tehsil Khajuwala, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Vpo Uttradabas, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
5. Ganesh Ram S/o Shri Madan Gopal, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Ward No. 09, Chota Bus Stand, Birmana, Tehsil
Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
6. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Gulab Chand, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Vpo Budania, Tehsil Chirawa, District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
7. Anil Kumar S/o Shri Khet Pal, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Ward No. 01, Vpo Nagrana, District Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan.
8. Raju Ram S/o Shri Pancha Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/
o Vpo Basni Seja, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
9. Rajendra Bishnoi S/o Shri Ram Kumar Bishnoi, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Ward No. 09, Phuldesar,
Loonkaransar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
10. Ravinder Kumar Bishnoi S/o Shri Ram Kumar, Aged About
38 Years, R/o Ward No. 01, Chandurwali, Tehsil Tibbi,
District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
11. Pappu Ram Jat S/o Shri Mala Ram Choudhary, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Nh-15, Ganganagar Road, Village
Bichwal, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 23/03/2022 at 08:39:30 PM)
(4 of 20) [CW-17265/2021]
12. Satya Narayan Suwlka S/o Shri Badrilal Suwlka, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Village Taswariya, Post Bawari, Tehsil
Jahazpur, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
13. Ramphal Bangrwa S/o Shri Hari Singh Bangrwa, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Khundia Bass, Post Rampura Beri,
Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.
14. Kalu Lal Dhaker S/o Shri Prabhu Lal Dhaker, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Piplda, Dorai, Chhitorgarh, District
Chhitorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Agriculture Directorate, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chairmen, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17420/2021
1. Mahaveer Prasad S/o Shri Shyopat Ram, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Chak-13 Stb Po Manaktheri,
Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
2. Bhagirath Choudhary S/o Shri Pappu Ram, Aged About 20
Years, R/o Nerwa Jati Shiv Santora Khurd, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. Amar Singh S/o Shri Het Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Ward No. 01, Chak 8 H.w.d. Rampura Matoria, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
4. Udaideep Balihara S/o Shri Rameshwar Balihara, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Ward No. 03. Vpo Satipura, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
5. Amit Bhadu S/o Shri Rai Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Ward No. 27, Vpo Lalgarh Jattan, Tehsil Sadulshahar,
District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
6. Charan Singh S/o Shri Indraj Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Ward No. 11, Vpo Lalgarh Jattan, Tehsil Sadulshahar,
District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
7. Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Krishan Lal, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Ward No. 01, Vpo Lalgarh Jattan, Tehsil
Sadulshahar, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
8. Jaskaran Singh S/o Shri Sukhveer Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Vpo Dharamsinghwala, Tehsil Sadulshahar,
District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
9. Vikash Kumar S/o Shri Rughveer Deharu, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Ward No. 05, Sultanwala Po Badopal, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 23/03/2022 at 08:39:30 PM)
(5 of 20) [CW-17265/2021]
10. Viswash Kumar S/o Shri Hansraj, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Chak 7Bd Po 17 Kyd, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
11. Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Bhagvan Dutt, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Vpo Kanwarpura (4Ffb) Thandewala, Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
12. Pooja D/o Shri Rajendra Kumar, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Ward No. 06, Vpo Ratanpura, Tehsil Sangaria, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
13. Mahesh Kumar S/o Shri Mahavir Prasad, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Vpo Sardarpura Khalsa, Tehsil Rawatsar,
District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
14. Ravi Kumar S/o Shri Girdhari Lal, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Vpo 15 Sad Saizanda, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
15. Hari Om Saini S/o Shri Gopal Lal Saini, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village Singhari Post Sahaspuriya, Tehsil
Hindoli, District Bundi, Rajasthan.
16. Ramjas Bera S/o Shri Sukhram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Jaton Ka Bass, Gothra, Tehsil Mundwa, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Agriculture Directorate, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chairmen, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17450/2021
Aseem Acharya S/o Sh. Jyotimitra Acharya, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Opp. Mahalaxmi Mandir, Inside Usta Bari, Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, Through Its
Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Durgapura,
Jaipur 302018.
3. Chairman, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Durgapura,
Jaipur 302018.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 23/03/2022 at 08:39:30 PM)
(6 of 20) [CW-17265/2021]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17664/2021
Parveen Kumar S/o Shri Bharat Kumar, Aged About 27 Years,
Vpo Bolanwali, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17666/2021
1. Kamal Yadav S/o Shri Girdhari Lal, Aged About 22 Years,
Resident Of Harijano Ka Bass, Tarnau, District Nagaur
(Raj.).
2. Rajendra Sinwar S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 23
Years, Resident Of Dikhanada Bas Ward No. 2, Jocheena,
District Nagaur (Raj.).
3. Naresh Choudhary S/o Shri Bhinya Ram, Aged About 22
Years, Resident Of Jato Ka Bas, Reprawas, District Pali
(Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
Of Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services
Selection Board, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises,
Durgapur, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17729/2021
1. Mandeep Singh S/o Buta Singh, Aged About 36 Years,
Ward No.07, Near Girls School, Dhaban, Tehsil Sangaria,
District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
2. Mukesh Kumar S/o Sant Lal, Aged About 26 Years, Ward
No.09, Vpo Sonari, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan.
3. Sushila D/o Balwant Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Vpo
Sonari, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
4. Rakesh Bishnoi S/o Sampat Lal, Aged About 30 Years,
Chungi Chowki, Gajner Road, Bikaner, District Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
5. Sita Ram Verma Raigar S/o Bhagawan Sahaya Raigar,
Aged About 25 Years, Vpo Raghunathpura, Via Jahota,
Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 23/03/2022 at 08:39:30 PM)
(7 of 20) [CW-17265/2021]
6. Kanhaiya Lal Bheel S/o Ratan Lal Bheel, Aged About 24
Years, Vpo Piplada, Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh,
Rajasthan.
7. Lokesh Kumar Dhakar S/o Bheru Lal, Aged About 27
Years, Vpo Kheri, Tehsil Begun, District Chittorgarh,
Rajasthan.
8. Vikram Singh S/o Omprakash, Aged About 26 Years, Vpo
Bakara, Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
9. Tejkaran Goura S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 24 Years, Vpo
Dhanipura, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
10. Abdul Vaheed Quresh S/o Abdul Shakoor, Aged About 35
Years, Sadar Bazar, Village Borunda, Tehsil Pipar City,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Agriculture Directorate, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chairman, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17980/2021
1. Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Ram Narayan, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Vpo Munda Thakur Ji Mandir Wali Gali,
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
2. Jairaj Singh Gour S/o Shri Rajendra Singh Gour, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o Village Abra, Post Raithal, Tehsil And
District Bundi, Rajasthan.
3. Narendra Kumar S/o Shri Chandra Bhan, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Village Charan Singh Nagar, Post Nangali
Saledi Singh, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
4. Ramdev Tiwari S/o Shri Mahesh Kumar Tiwari, Aged
About 21 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Near Bsnl Office,
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Agriculture Directorate, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chairman, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 23/03/2022 at 08:39:30 PM)
(8 of 20) [CW-17265/2021]
4. The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 55/2022
Sandeep Kumar S/o Chandra Bhan, Aged About 29 Years, Chak
11 Ksp, Vpo Munda, Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Agriculture Directorate, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chairman, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 253/2022
1. Jagjeet Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Ward No. 06, 5 Ssw Jhamber, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
2. Jogendra Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Ward No. 06, Village Asarjana, Post Birkali,
District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
3. Raman Kumar S/o Shri Daleep Kumar, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Ward No. 01, 9 Ll Vpo Chunawadh, District
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
4. Sukhpal Singh S/o Shri Ajaib Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Vpo Bolanwali, Tehsil Sangaria, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
5. Kulwant Singh S/o Shri Nathu Singh, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Vpo Lilanwali, Tehsil Sangaria, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
6. Dayala Ram Jaat S/o Shri Indraj Jaat, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Vpo Rojhan, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
7. Laxman Ram S/o Shri Dala Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/
o Vpo Suwaliya, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Agriculture Directorate, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chairmen, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 23/03/2022 at 08:39:30 PM)
(9 of 20) [CW-17265/2021]
4. The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 694/2022
Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Satya Narayan, Aged About 27 Years, R/
o Vp Kalwasia Ward No. 4, Sadulsahar, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
Of Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services
Selection Board, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises,
Durgapur, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1131/2022
Vishnu Kumar S/o Sh. Hanuman, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
V.p.o- Karadwali, Tehsil- Raisinghnagar, District- Sriganganagar
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Agriculture Directorate, Rajasthan Jaipur.
3. The Chairman, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board,
Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board,
Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1479/2022
Mohit Kumar S/o Shri Ved Prakash, Aged About 23 Years, Ward
No. 4, Beharwala Kalan, Post Office Talwara Jheel, Tehsil Tibbi,
District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministrial Service Selection
Board, Jaipur, Through Its Secretary, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Chairman, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service
Selection Board, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 23/03/2022 at 08:39:30 PM)
(10 of 20) [CW-17265/2021]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1707/2022
1. Gurpreet Singh S/o Shri Rajvinder Singh, Aged About 21
Years, Ward No. -08, 7 Gd-A, Ganganagar, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.).
2. Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Chandgi Ram, Aged About 32
Years, Vpo Haripura Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Agriculture Directorate, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chairman, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Jangid, Mr. M.S.
Shekhawat, Mr. Govind Suthar, Mr.
Bheru Lal Jat for Mr. O.P. Sangwa,
Mr.Pradeep Singh for Mr. H.S. Sidhu,
Mr. Dharamveer Choudhary for Mr.
Anil Vyas, Mr. Suresh Khadav, Mr.
Surendra Thanvi & Ms. Twinkle
Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with Mr.
Rajat Arora,
Mr. Vinit Sanadhya & Ms. Shalini
Mr. Manvendra Krishan Singh Bhati.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 23/03/2022 These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking to question the revised answer key issued by the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board ('the Board') for recruitment to the post of Agriculture Supervisor pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.02.2021, preparation of a (Downloaded on 23/03/2022 at 08:39:30 PM) (11 of 20) [CW-17265/2021] fresh answer key considering the objections raised by the petitioners for the disputed questions and erroneous answers based on the material produced by them and reevaluation of the answer-sheets and issuance of a fresh select list of provisionally selected candidates.
It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petitions that advertisement No.1/2021 was issued by the Board inviting online applications for the post of Agriculture Supervisor on 05.02.2021. An amended advertisement was issued, whereby certain relaxations were given to the candidates belonging to Economically Weaker Section ('EWS'), number of posts were also increased. The competitive exam for further recruitment was held on 18.09.2021; the preliminary answer key was issued by the Board alongwith a press-note calling for objections towards the preliminary answer key alongwith supporting study material on 24.09.2021; final answer key was issued by the Board based on the decision taken by the expert committee on the objections raised by the candidates on 23.11.2021 alongwith list of provisional selected candidates for the purpose of document verification and credentials of the candidates.
The petitioners have questioned the validity of large number of questions / final answers and/or the deletion of particular questions based on the opinion of the expert committee.
During the course of submissions, the petitioners made submissions in relation to Question Nos.2, 5, 9, 18, 25, 32, 38, 42, 45, 49, 68, 82, 86 & 90.
The Board, which had appeared under the directions of the Court, was directed to produce the expert opinion on the (Downloaded on 23/03/2022 at 08:39:30 PM) (12 of 20) [CW-17265/2021] questions alongwith the supporting material for perusal of the Court, which has been produced by the Board.
Learned counsel for the parties were heard on the various questions.
The petitioners have filed extracts from books / material seeking to support their contentions in relation to the validity of the questions / answers and the decision of the expert committee thereon.
It would be appropriate to reproduce the disputed questions, the final answer based on decision of the expert committee and view of the expert committee :-
Question No.2 : fdl fodYi ds leLrin dk lekl&foxzg vlaxr gS\ (A) frjlB & rhu vkSj lkB (B) eqfuJs"B & Js"B gS tks eqfu (C) iapik= & iap ¼ikap½ ik=ksa dk lewg (D) ns'kHkfDr & ns'k dh HkfDr Final Answer based on decision of the expert committee : (B) View of the expert committee : eqfuJs"B dk lekl&foxzg ^eqfu;ksa esa Js"B* gksxkA vr% ;s vlaxr gSA tcfd fodYi esa ^Js"B gS tks eqfu* vafdr gSA vr% ;g vlaxr gSA Question No.5 : fuEu esa ls v'kq) okD; dk p;u dhft, & (A) eSaus jk/kk dks ,d iqLrd lefiZr dhA (B) izR;sd O;fDr dks lkfRod thou thuk pkfg,A (C) d`i;k njoktk can djus dk d"V djsaA (D) ;g dke dksbZ odhy ls gh gks ldrk gSA Final Answer based on decision of the expert committee : (D) View of the expert committee : vk;ksx }kjk fn;k x;k mÙkj fodYi D lgh gSA fo|kfFkZ;ksa us lekukFkhZ ds vk/kkj ij tks rdZ fn;s gSa] os d`i;k vkSj d"V ds lanHkZ esa mfpr ugha gSA vr% fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds vkCtsD'ku ekU; ugha gSA Question No.9 : vFkZ dh n`f"V ls dkSu&lh yksdksfDr vlaxr gS\ (A) dkSvk pys gal dh pky & fcuk lksps&le>s vuqlj.k djuk (Downloaded on 23/03/2022 at 08:39:30 PM) (13 of 20) [CW-17265/2021] (B) dgk¡ jktk Hkkst] dgk¡ xaxw rsyh & nks vleku O;fDr;ksa dh rqyuk (C) tSls lk¡iukFk] oSls ukxukFk & nks O;fDr;ksa esa ,d&ls voxq.k gksuk (D) Vds dh pVkbZ] ukS Vdk fonkbZ & /kS;Z u j[kuk Final Answer based on decision of the expert committee : (Delete) View of the expert committee : 1- fganh O;kdj.k ,oa jpuk&izcks/k ¼d{kk 9] 10] 11 o 12 ds fy,½ ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ jktLFkku] vtesj & la;kstd & MkW- f'ko'kj.k dkSf'kd & i`"B la[;k 146 ij dkSvk pys gal dh pky yksdksfDr dk vFkZ & fdlh vkSj dk vuqlj.k dj viukiu [kksukA fn;k gqvk gS ysfdu fodYi esa fcuk lksps le>s vuqlj.k djuk fy[kk gSA nksuksa esa lekurk ugha gSA vr% cPpksa dk vkWCtsD'ku lgh gSA Question No.18: Recently which wildlife sanctuary of Rajasthan has been approved the 4th Tiger Reserve of state?
(A)- Todgarh-Raoli (B)- Ramgarh Vishdhari (C)- Bassi (D)- Tal Chhapar View of the expert committee : Within syllabus as "ikB;Øe ds ikVZ-II esa jktLFkku dk lkekU; Kku gS ,oa HkkSxksfyd v/;;u esa Hkh oU;tho vH;kj.; vkrk gSA"
Question No.25 : Bhadla Solar Park is located at -
(A)- Jaisalmer (B)- Jodhpur (C)- Barmer (D)- Jalore
View of the expert committee : Within syllabus as "ikB;Øe ds ikVZ-II esa jktLFkku dk lkekU; Kku esa HkM+yk lksyj ikdZ vkrk gS& lkekU; Kku esa ;s lHkh lfEefyr gSA"
Question No.32: Who is the Chairman of the Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission ?
(A)- C.K. Dave (B)- Niranjan Arya (C)- Bhupendra Yadav (D)- G.K. Vyas
View of the expert committee : Within syllabus as "This question is related to G.K. of Rajasthan."
Question No.38: Badland Topography can be observed in Rajasthan, in -
(A)- Kota and Bundi (B)- Jaisalmer & Barmer. (Downloaded on 23/03/2022 at 08:39:30 PM)
(14 of 20) [CW-17265/2021]
(C)- Ganganagar & Hanumangarh (D)-Sawai Madhopur,
Karauli & Dholpur.
Final Answer based on decision
of the expert committee : (D)
View of the expert committee : iz'u esa mR[kkr Hkwfe LFkykd`fr jkt- esa dksVk] lokbZek/kksiqj] djkSyh] /kkSyiqj esa gS] ij fodYi esa ^D* lgh gS ftlesa l- ek/kksiqj] djkSyh] /kkSyiqj ftys gSA blesa ^A^ fodYi ugha gks ldrk D;ksafd dksVk ds lkFk cawnh ftyk gSA vr% ^D* fodYi lgh gSA Question No.42 : How much urea (kg) will be required, for 1- hectare area, at the rate of 150 kg nitrogen per hectare application ?
(A)- 3255 kg (B)- 325 kg (C)- 690 kg (D)- 306 kg Final Answer based on decision of the expert committee : (A)
View of the expert committee : As per formula and nitrogen content in urea (cdHH2)2 it is approximately 3255 kg.
Question No.45: Indian Meteorological Department was established in 1875, with headquarter at -
(A)- Jaipur (B)- Pune (C)- New Delhi (D)- Calcutta Final Answer based on decision of the expert committee : (D)
Expert committee has relied on excerpt from the website of Indian Meteorological Department, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India under heading 'History of Meteorological Services in India', it is inter-alia indicated as under :-
"In the year 1875, the Government of India established the India Meteorological Department, bringing all meteorological work in the country under a central authority. Mr. H.F. Blanford was appointed Meteorological Reporter to the Government of India. The first Director General of Observatories was Sir John Eliot who was appointed in May 1889 at Calcutta headquarters. The headquarters of IMD were later shifted to Shimla, then to Poona (now Pune) and finally to New Delhi."
Question No.49 : What will be the percentage of porosity of a soil which has 1.5g/cm3 bulk density and 2.65 g/ cm3 particle density?
(Downloaded on 23/03/2022 at 08:39:30 PM)
(15 of 20) [CW-17265/2021] (A)- 38 (B)- 40 (C)- 42 (D)- 36 Final Answer based on decision of the expert committee : (Delete)
View of the expert committee : Handbook of Agriculture by ICAR Sixth Rev. Ed. 2009 Page No.189, the calculated value by formula and given value it is 43.4. In give opinions no value or opinion. It is suggested for deletion.
Question No.68: Liquorice is also known as -
(A)- Isabgol (B)- Mulethi (C)- Ashwagandha (D)- None of these Final Answer based on decision of the expert committee : (B)
Court : Qua the above question submissions have been made that option 'C' in a particular series of Question Booklet has been wrongly placed, which should have been at the end, however, the expert committee found that as option 'B' was correct, which was common in all series of Question Booklet, the placing of the option had no implication.
Question No.82 : Which of the following is used as a purgative in animals ?
(A)- Magnesium Sulphate (B)- Aluminium Hydroxide (C)- Castor oil (D)- All of the above Final Answer based on decision of the expert committee : (Delete)
View of the expert committee : Objection accepted, The question may be deleted. Reference attached Essentials of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Second Edition by Harpal Singh Sandhu Pg. 42 & 43.
Question No.86: Out of the following drugs, which is most common anthelmintic drug used in animals?
(A)- Meloxicam (B)- Oxytetracycline
(C)- Ivermectin (D)- Potassium permanganate
Final Answer based on decision
of the expert committee : (C)
(Downloaded on 23/03/2022 at 08:39:30 PM)
(16 of 20) [CW-17265/2021]
View of the expert committee : In the option 'A' Meloxicam is a nonsteroid antimflamatory drug.
In option 'B' it is a broad spectrum antibiotics. In option 'C' Ivermectin is most common drug used as anthelmintics. In option 'D' Potassium permanganate is oxidizing agent. Therefore, the objection raised that all drug mentioned in the option cannot be used as anthelmintic drug. It is only Ivermectin that is most commonly used as anthelmintic drug. Reference enclosed.
Question No.90 : Exotic breed of goat among the following is-
(A)-Toggenburg (B)- Barbari (C)-Jamunapari (D)- Beetal Final Answer based on decision of the expert committee : (A)
View of the expert committee : Reference attached as NBAGR has declared under registered breed of India. Toggenburg is a exotic breed.
Qua question Nos.18, 25 & 32 submissions have been made that the syllabus for the exam only indicates General Knowledge, whereas the questions pertain to General Awareness and as such the questions being beyond syllabus, deserve to be deleted.
While General Knowledge means knowledge about a wide range of subjects, General Awareness means knowledge about the present happenings. Further while answers to the General Knowledge questions are almost fixed, the answers to the General Awareness questions depend upon happenings / news around the world.
The expert committee has dealt with the objections appropriately. A look at the objected questions would reveal that none of the said questions would per se fall within the category of (Downloaded on 23/03/2022 at 08:39:30 PM) (17 of 20) [CW-17265/2021] General Awareness and as such the objections raised in this regard also have no substance.
From the above, it is apparent that the expert committee has thoroughly examined the objections as raised by the petitioners and have reached to a particular conclusion. The petitioners have made submissions based on the material produced by them in support of their claim in relation to each question and the expert committee has referred to / relied on material in support of the conclusion arrived at by them. As out of two materials produced by the petitioners and considered by the expert committee, which material should be relied on, essentially is in the domain of the expert committee and this Court, possibly cannot after the expert committee has arrived at a particular conclusion, opine otherwise, unless the decision made thereon is found to be wholly arbitrary and/or contrary to the material relied on, which in the present case does not appear to be the case.
The parameters for exercise of the jurisdiction by this Court, qua the expert committee opinion, have been repeatedly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Division bench of this Court.
The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the latest being in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : (2021) 2 SCC 309 as followed by the Division Bench in Rajkamal Basitha v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Ors. : D.B.C.W.P. No.11347/2021, decided on 21.02.2022 (at Jaipur Bench) is well settled. The Division Bench in the case of Rajkamal Basitha (supra) observed as under :- (Downloaded on 23/03/2022 at 08:39:30 PM)
(18 of 20) [CW-17265/2021] "It is well settled through series of judgments of the Supreme Court that the judicial review of the decision of the examining body be it in the filed of education or in the recruitment to the public employment, is extremely limited. Particularly when the examination is being conducted by an expert body and disputed questions are scanned by specially constituted expert committee, the Courts are extremely slow in interfering with the decisions of such bodies. Unless it is pointed out that there is a glaring error or an irrational decision has been rendered the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would not interfere." Prior to that in RPSC v. Pankaj Raj : D.B.S.A.W. No.697/2019, decided on 29.05.2019 (at Jaipur Bench), the Division Bench while setting aside the judgment of the learned Single, inter-alia, observed as under :-
"The impugned judgment in this Court's opinion is clearly erroneous inasmuch as the court has unwittingly donned the robe of the decision maker: to wit, that of an expert, in art, in concluding that one of the choices was defective (question No.11) and that the RPSC's explanation about a misprint was irrelevant, because the answer was wrongly given. These conclusions the court cannot arrive at, as they amount to primary decision making- a task which cannot be undertaken under Article 226. The impugned judgment also overlooked the salutary rule that in the event of doubt, "the benefit ought to go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate" (Ran Vijay, supra)."
In another Division Bench judgment in Jagdish Kumar Choudhary & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission :
D.B.S.A.W. No.447/2020, decided on 21.10.2021, a case where the learned Single Judge had interfered with the decision of the expert committee, it was observed by the Division Bench as under:-
"In our view, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the final conclusion of the expert body duly constituted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission having expertise in the field. It is not necessary to refer to large number of decisions of this Court as well as of Supreme Court which essentially lay down that the interference by the High Court in matters of education and other technical fields should be kept to the minimum. Short reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Richal & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. [2018 (8) SCC 81] would be sufficient."
(Downloaded on 23/03/2022 at 08:39:30 PM)
(19 of 20) [CW-17265/2021] Very recently, when the learned Single Judge interfered with the decision made by the expert committee, in relation to the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination held by the RPSC, the Division Bench in RPSC v. Ankit Sharma : D.B.S.A.W. No.429/2022, in its order dated 23.02.2022, after referring to the judgments in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. : (2018) 2 SCC 357, UPPSC v. Rahul Singh : (2018) 7 SCC 254, Vikesh Kumar Gupta (supra), Bihar Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Arun Kumar & Ors. : (2020) 6 SCC 362, inter-alia, observed while staying the order of the learned Single Judge, as under :-
"14. We have referred to the consistent trend of the case law coming from the Supreme Court on the subject. Broadly the approach in such situation is that the scope of judicial review against expert's opinion is extremely limited. There is a requirement of finality to the process of public employment. This is not to suggest that judicial review is completely shutout; it cannot be. However unless the situation presents a clear cut, black and white, open and shut choice of the decision of the expert body being palpably wrong, the Court would not interfere.
An element of tolerance to the minor error or calibration is discernible since achieving certainty and finality is also important.
The finality and perfection are sworn enemies.
15. With this legal clarity if we revert back to the questions with respect to which the learned Judge objected to the conclusions of RPSC, none of these questions would prima facie pass the muster of extremely high threshold provided by the Supreme Court in series of judgments noted above. In all cases the learned Single Judge has gone on at considerable length to discuss the view point of the petitioners and material produced by them in support of their contentions, what the expert committee had taken into account and why in the opinion of the learned Judge such conclusions were wrong. At this stage we are not inclined to go into these questions threadbare since we do not propose and we cannot decide these appeals finally. Nevertheless we have strong prima facie belief that the learned Judge had exceeded the scope of writ jurisdiction in the present case. No legal or factual malafides are demonstrated nor procedural illegality established.
It may be that in some cases there is a grey area. That by itself would not be sufficient for the writ court to upturn the decision of the expert's body."(Downloaded on 23/03/2022 at 08:39:30 PM)
(20 of 20) [CW-17265/2021] The Special Leave Petition filed against the Division Bench order came to be rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14.03.2022.
In view of above factual & legal position, wherein the expert committee, after considering the objections raised by the candidates, based on the relevant material, has made a decision regarding change in the answer as indicated in the preliminary answer key / maintaining the answer / deleting the question, for lack of any creditable challenge / glaring mistake falling within the parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court, no case for interference is made out.
The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J Rmathur/-(Downloaded on 23/03/2022 at 08:39:30 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)