Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vishnu Datt Saini S/O Govind Narayan vs The State Of Rajasthan on 8 March, 2022
Author: Inderjeet Singh
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14328/2020
1. Vishnu Datt Saini S/o Govind Narayan, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 189 Maliyon Ki Dhani, Ward No. 03, Chomu
Jaipur (303702) (Raj.).
2. Ajay Kumar S/o Subhash Chandra, R/o Vill.-Jawaharpura
Post-Nua, Jhunjhunu (333041) (Raj.).
3. Sourabh Mahala S/o Jhabar Mal Mahala, R/o Mahala
House, Ward No. 01 Navodi, Shrimadhopur,sikar
(332715) (Raj.).
4. Pawan Saini S/o Gopal Lal Saini, R/o 70 Balekhan Mulgani
Dhani, Loharwara,chomu,jaipur (303807) (Raj.).
5. Ravi Choudhary S/o Hans Raj Choudhary, R/o 51 Khatiyo
Ka Mohalla, Ramchandrapura, Sanganer, Jaipur (303905)
(Raj.).
6. Shimbhu Dayal Saini S/o Ram Kishor Saini, R/o Samod
Road Nimadi Hathnoda Chomu Jaipur (303807) (Raj.).
7. Rahul Swarnkar S/o Dayalal Swarnkar, R/o Jain Mohalla
Bagidora, Banswara (327601) (Raj.).
8. Devilal S/o Bhagirath Ram, R/o Siya Gav, Pur Jalor
(343041) (Raj.).
9. Prabhu Ram Suthar S/o Pira Ram, R/o Aleri, Raniwara,
Jalor (343049) (Raj.).
10. Punam Chand S/o Deva Ram, R/o Ward No.7 Phulasar,
Bajju Khalasa, Bikaner (334305) (Raj.).
11. Mohd.jahid Usta S/o Zakir Hussain Usta, R/o 15-Mohalla
Ustan, Near Big House, Bikaner (334001 (Raj.).
12. Vikash Saini S/o Sunder Lal, R/o Ward No.22 Maliyon Ka
Mohalla, Hanuman Mandir Ke Pass Nohar, Hanumanharh
(335523) (Raj.).
13. Meenu Saini S/o Gulab Chaand Saini, R/o Ward No.35,
Raghunath Ji Ki Bagechi, Ringus Road, Chomu, Jaipur
(303702) (Raj.).
14. Chhoutu Ram Farroda S/o Mehram Farroda, R/o Tegore
School Ke Pass Manasar, Nagaur (341001) (Raj.).
15. Bhagwan Sahai Jat S/o Gopal Lal Jat, R/o Vpo Devgudha,
Th. Amber Jaipur (303701) (Raj.).
----Petitioners
(Downloaded on 11/03/2022 at 09:19:01 PM)
(2 of 19) [CW-14328/2020]
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry And Dairy Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.
3. Ankit Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh, R/o
Village Ekla, Teh. Murdaha Varansi, Uttar Pradesh Pin No.
221202.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14577/2020
1. Jitendra Singh Gangwal S/o Shri Madan Lal Gangwal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village - Bibolaw, Post-Ganeti, Tehsil Todaraisingh, Distt. Tonk - 304505 (Raj.).
2. Aditya Kaswan S/o Liladhar Kaswan, Ward No. 23, Bhadra, Hanumangarh, 335501 (Raj.).
3. Ajay Kumar Jhajhariya S/o Om Prakash Jhajhariya, R/o Adarsh Colony, Nawalgarh Road, Ward No 40 Sikar 332001 (Raj.).
4. Ajay Kumar S/o Mahandra Singh Thakan, R/o Angasar, Abusar, Jhunjhunu 333001 (Raj.).
5. Akhil S/o Budharmal, Jandwa Ratangarh, Churu - 331022 (Raj.).
6. Akshaya Kumar S/o Om Prakash, R/o Jharewa, Sikar, 332316 (Raj.).
7. Alok Jat S/o Bharat Lal Jat, Kankoriya, R/o Farm House Ke Pass Khandar Dist Sawaimadhopur 322025 (Raj.).
8. Amba Lal S/o Dhana Ram Kumawat, R/o Nali Ka Balaji, Kuchaman City Nagaur 341508 (Raj.).
9. Amit Kumar S/o Om Prakash, R/o 68 Korani Johad Vali Dhani Togra Khurd Jhunjhunu 333707 (Raj.).
10. Anamika Saini D/o Ram Chander, R/o Ward No 01 Dhani Bandedi Udaipurwati Tehsil Jhunjhunu 333302 (Raj.).
11. Anil Kumar Khichar S/o Rajendra Singh, R/o 10/44 New Housing Board Jhunjhunu 330001 (Raj.).
12. Anil Kumar S/o Jagdeesh Chandra, R/o Ward No -09, 06Iks Lakhasar Dist Hanumangarh 335803 (Raj.).
13. Anita Kumari D/o Banwari Lal, Road No 3, R/o Ward No (Downloaded on 11/03/2022 at 09:19:01 PM) (3 of 19) [CW-14328/2020] 09, Diesel Pump Service, Jhunjhunu, 333001 (Raj.).
14. Ankush Kumar Suman S/o Laxmi Narayan Suman, R/o Ward No 26, Jhalawar Road Khanpur 326038 (Raj.).
15. Ashish Kumar S/o Brij Lal, R/o Warispura, Tehsil Jhunjhunu Dist Jhunjhunu 333001 (Raj.).
16. Ashok Kumar S/o Madan Singh, R/o Near Bus Stand, Chachiwad Bada, Sikar - 332311 (Raj.).
17. Ashok Kumar Boori S/o Jagdeesh Prasad, R/o Mohan Ka Bas Post Karansar Renwal Jaipur (Raj.).
18. Ashok Kumar Keer S/o Rameshwar Lal Keer, R/o 43, Dhakd Mohalla Bilawati Kheda, Tehsil- Srward, Hingoniyan Junia Ajmer (305406) (Raj.).
19. Ayush Chaudhary S/o Raj Bahadur, R/o Vill - Hansalsar, Jhunjhunu, 333021 (Raj.).
20. Babita Kumari D/o Nathu Singh, R/o Tehsil - Nawalgarh Khojas Jhunjhunu - 333304 (Raj.).
21. Babu Lal S/o Ramesh Chand, R/o Lalpur Unch Nadbai, Bharatpur Raj 321602 (Raj.).
22. Babu Lal Yadav S/o Nanu Ram Yadav, R/o 56 Kariron Ki Dhani Renwal Road Chomu Jaipur 307302 (Raj.).
23. Bhanu Prakash S/o Nihal Singh, R/o Vpo - Shyopura, Tehsil - Chirawa, District - Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
24. Bhawani Singh S/o Keshar Singh, R/o Ward No 04, Jalpali Srimadhopur Dist Sikar 332715 (Raj.).
25. Chaman Patidar S/o Suresh Chand Patidar, R/o Village -
Arniya, Post - Devad Dist. - Pratapgarh (312605) (Raj.).
26. Chandra Shekhar S/o Shiv Narayan Bishnoi, R/o Bher, Nagaur 341001 (Raj.).
27. Deepak Gahlot S/o Brij Mohan Gahlot, R/o Shiv Mandir Ke Samne, Ranisar Bash, Bikaner (334001) (Raj.).
28. Deepak Gill S/o Chandgi Ram, R/o Bugala, Jhunjhunu, 333305 (Raj.).
29. Dharm Chand Saini S/o Raghu Nath Saini, R/o Ward No 03, Dhani Bharanki, Thoi, Sikar 332719 (Raj.).
30. Dilip Kumar Yogi S/o Satyapal Yogi, R/o V/p. Rampura, Bega Ki Nangal, Neem Ka Thana Sikar, 332718 (Raj.).
31. Dinesh Kumar Dhaker S/o Suresh Chand Dhaker, R/o Thukrai, Chittorgarh 312023 (Raj.).
(Downloaded on 11/03/2022 at 09:19:01 PM)(4 of 19) [CW-14328/2020]
32. Dinesh Kumar S/o Ranjeet Singh, R/o V/p Ajeetpura Via-
Kaseru, Mukundgarh Dist Jhunjhunu 333705 (Raj.).
33. Dinesh Kumar Saini S/o Tarachand Saini, R/o Ward No. 26 Patavari Ki Dungari Rajgarh. Tehsil-Rajgarh, District - Alwar (Rajasthan)
34. Dinesh Pratap Yadav S/o Suresh Chand Yadav, Dwarikapura Kotputali Jaipur (303107) (Raj.).
35. Dinesh S/o Kojaram, R/o V/p-Tadawas Dist Nagaur 341025 (Raj.).
36. Gara Ram Saini S/o Suva Lal Saini, R/o V/p- Modawala, Pragpura Tehsil- Kotputli, Jaipur 303107 (Raj.).
37. Ghanshyam S/o Nanak Ram Verma, R/o Jhiwana, Alwar, 301707 (Raj.).
38. Gurvinder S/o Rajpal, R/o Surajgarh, Jhunjhunu, 333029 (Raj.).
39. Harimohan Mali S/o Dhan Singh Mali, R/o Mahamadpur, Sapotra, Karauli 322255 (Raj.).
40. Hemant Kumar Saini S/o Ram Niwas Saini, R/o Near Old Water Works Ward No 22 Chandani Chowk Rajgarh Sadulpur Churu 331023 (Raj.).
41. Hitesh Choudhary S/o Gheesa Ram Choudhary, R/o 128 Thakurwas, Pali 306023 (Raj.).
42. Indu Bala Choudhary D/o Hari Singh, R/o Behind Co Operative S/o City Jat Colony Nawalgarh Road Sikar Rajasthan.
43. Jagdish Das S/o Babu Das, R/o Vill. - Sankad, Ward No 7 Sado Ka Vas, Tehsil - Sanchore, Dist Jalore 343040 (Raj.).
44. Jai Prakash Khichar S/o Sanjiv Kumar Khichar, R/o Narsara Takhalsar Fatehsilpur Sikar 331024 (Raj.).
45. Jaideep S/o Bhoop Singh, R/o Ward No. 02, Vill. Bojhala, Bhadra, Hanumangarh, 335502
46. Jaskaran Singh S/o Sukhvinder Singh, R/o Vill 80 Baluwala Ward No 01, Shrikaranpur Dist Sriganganagar (Raj.).
47. Jayesh Nagar S/o Champa Lal Nagar, R/o Vip-Kawai Salpura Dist Baran 325219 (Raj.).
48. Jitendra Kumar S/o Mool Chand, R/o Vill-Dadiya, Via-
Katrathal Tehsil Sikar 332024 (Raj.).
49. Kamal Sokhal S/o Om Prakash Sokhal, R/o Ward No. 11, (Downloaded on 11/03/2022 at 09:19:01 PM) (5 of 19) [CW-14328/2020] House No. 520, Sukhwant Cinema Ke Piche, Purani Abadi, Ganganagar, 335001 (Raj.).
50. Khushiram Yadav S/o Desraj Yadav, R/o 7/26 Malviya Nagar Jaipur -302017 (Raj.).
51. Kirsan Kumar S/o Roopram, R/o Ward No 09 Bhadra Hanumangarh 335501 (Raj.).
52. Krishna Kumar Bagari S/o Raju Ram, R/o Ward No 8, Parbatsar, Nagaur, (Raj.).
53. Lakshmi Kant S/o Chob Singh, R/o Near Police Station, Gt Road, Maniyan Dholpur 328024 (Raj.).
54. Lalit Kumar S/o Tara Chand Yadav, R/o Bijorawas, Behror, Alwar 301701 (Raj.).
55. Lalit Kumar Jangid S/o Manohar Lal Jangid, R/o Ward No. 10, Dhobi Ke Pass, Chirawa, Jhunjhunu, 333026 (Raj.).
56. Lalit Kumar Saini S/o Sitaram Saini, R/o V/p-Hukampura Dist Tonk 304024 (Raj.).
57. Laxmi Narayan S/o Lalchand, R/o 18 Sanjay Colony Agrasen Nagar Sriganganagar 335001 (Raj.).
58. Lokesh Chahar S/o Ramkaran, R/o Amarpura, Alsisar, Jhunjhunu, 331025 (Raj.).
59. Mahesh Kumar S/o Maliram, R/o Ward No. 01, Hukampura, Jhunjhunu, 333012 (Raj.).
60. Mahipal S/o Vishan Singh, R/o Vpo-Alamsariya, Dhorimana, Barmer 344704 (Raj.).
61. Manoj Kumar Dhaka S/o Phool Singh Dhaka, Tehsil, R/o -
Laxmangarh Via- Jajod Bhuma Bar, Sikar, 332318 (Raj.).
62. Manoj Kumar Kalwaniya S/o Hardev Singh, R/o Bhojasar, Chhota, Laxamangarh, Sikar, 332312 (Raj.).
63. Manoj Sharma S/o Ramkishan Sharma, R/o Ramkishan Medical Store, Toda Bhim District - Karauli (321611) (Raj.).
64. Manoj Yogi S/o Gajanand Yogi, R/o Bansur, Neemuchana, Alwar 301024 (Raj.).
65. Manphool S/o Ramkaran Singh, R/o Ward No 12, Dundlod Kachha Rastay Par Dhani Sankhu Sikar 332401 (Raj.).
66. Mohammad Zahoor S/o Mohammad Zaffar, R/o Subhash Marg, Mohalla Vyapariyan, Bikaner (Raj.).
67. Mohan Singh S/o Badan Singh, R/o 232 Nagla Ghadi (Downloaded on 11/03/2022 at 09:19:01 PM) (6 of 19) [CW-14328/2020] Lakhan Penghore Kumher Bharatpur 321202 (Raj.).
68. Mohd. Saddam Syed S/o Shbbir Hussain Syed, R/o Ward No. 33, New Kotwali Road, Sikar (332001) (Raj.).
69. Mukesh Kumar S/o Gulab Singh, R/o Mundital, Churu, 331023 (Raj.).
70. Mukul Jethiwal S/o Madan Lal Jethiwal, R/o Near Senior Secondary School Sheeshyoo, Sikar 332405 (Raj.).
71. Munesh Kumar Pushp S/o Natthi Singh, R/o Near Railway Fatak Helena Road Nadbai Bharatpur 321602 (Raj.).
72. Narsi Ram Gora S/o Harkaran Ram Gora, R/o Sardar Singh Dhani Road Ramdev Colony, Kishangarh Ajmer 305801 (Raj.).
73. Nihal Singh Yadav S/o Ram Kunwar Yadav, R/o Vpo -
Sujat Nagar Dhani Khariyya Tehsil Kotputli, Dist. -Jaipur 303107 (Raj.).
74. Nitin Raj Saini S/o Rajpal Saini, R/o Modi Ward No 01, Mehara Jatoowas, Jhunjhunu, 333036 (Raj.).
75. Omprakash Natwaria S/o Ridmal Ram, R/o Sandan, Churu 331506 (Raj.).
76. Pawan Kumar S/o Bhup Singh, R/o Ward No 20 Sanjay Colony Rawatsar Dist Hanumangarh 335524 (Raj.).
77. Pawanesh Gahlot S/o Ram Prakash Gahlot, R/o 24, Pani Ki Tanki Ke Pass, Binchhaval, Bikaner - 334006 (Raj.).
78. Pradeep Pal Singh S/o Ramswaroop, R/o Gt Road Police Station Ke Pass Maniyan Dholpur 328024 (Raj.).
79. Prashant Saharan S/o Khayaliram Saharan, Vpo Beenjh Bayala, 47 Lnp 1, Ganganagar 335041 (Raj.).
80. Praveen Pilaniya S/o Vidyadhar Pilaniya, R/o Kishan Colony Near Kalpana Tailors, Nawalgarh Road, Sikar 332001 (Raj.).
81. Priya Saini S/o Lalaram Saini, R/o A-3, Bandhu Nagar, Jai Chamunda Colony, Murlipura, Jaipur - 302023 (Raj.).
82. Priyanka Kumawat D/okailash Chand Kumawat, R/o Ward 01, Baravalo Ki Dhani, Ringus Road, Chomu, Jaipur, 303802 (Raj.).
83. Pukhraj Mahala S/o Jodha Ram, R/o Kushalpura, Reengan Nagaur (Raj.).
84. Rahul Kumar S/o Krishan Kumar, R/o Bharti Bhawan, Narhar, Jhunjhunu, 333035 (Raj.).
(Downloaded on 11/03/2022 at 09:19:01 PM)(7 of 19) [CW-14328/2020]
85. Rahul Kumar Saini S/o Laxminarayan Saini, R/o Butoliya Karshi Farm Ke Pass, Hanuman Ji Ka Rasta, Ward No 30, Chomu Jaipur 303702 (Raj.).
86. Rajendra Singh S/o Rameshwar Lal Dhayal, R/o Ward No 07 Dhani Budh Singh Wali Kotari Dhayalan Sikar 332404 (Raj.).
87. Rajesh Kumar S/o Banwari Lal, R/o Ward No. 3, Bagriyo Ki Dhani, Sangarwa, Sikar - 332405 (Raj.).
88. Rajesh Kumar S/o Mohan Lal, R/o 3/391, Kisan Colony, Jhunjhunu, 333001 (Raj.).
89. Rajesh Kumar Saini S/o Richhpal Ram Saini, R/o Ward No. 08, Bdi Dhani, Modern School Ke Pass, Thoi, Sikar, 332719 (Raj.).
90. Rajnesh Kumar S/o Mahesh Kumar, R/o Khichdo Ki Dahni, Rahnawa, Sikar 332401 (Raj.).
91. Rakesh Gena S/o Inder Raj Gena, R/o Rajputo Ko Mohalla, Tabeeji Rural, Ajmer (305206) (Raj.).
92. Rakesh Kumar S/o Rajendra Prasad, R/o Ward No. 9, B.ed. College Dharma Wala Kuwa, Rajbhawan Udaipurwati, Jhunjhunu, 333307 (Raj.).
93. Rakesh Kumar S/o Hardayal Singh, R/o Gram Post -
Nanau, Tehsil - Nohar, Hanumangarh - 335523 (Raj.).
94. Rakesh Kumar S/o Shishupal Singh, R/o Chanwra Road, Bijarniya Ki Dhani, Gudagorji Ka, Jhunjhunu 333022 (Raj.).
95. Rakesh Kumar Kharbas S/o Sultan Singh, R/o Ward No. 14, Tarpura, Sikar, 332024 (Raj.).
96. Rakesh Kumar S/o Ramniwas, R/o Madhopura, Sikar 332401 (Raj.).
97. Ram Lal S/o Mohanram, R/o 195, Jangid Colony, Paani Ki Tanki, Seva Nagaur, 341303 (Raj.).
98. Rameshwar Lega S/o Arjun Ram, R/o V/p Lega Ki Dhani Toshina Didwana Dist Nagaur 341319 (Raj.).
99. Ranjit Rewar S/o Girdhari Ram, R/o V/p - Singhana, Didwana, Nagaur (341303) (Raj.).
100. Ravi Kumar Yadav S/o Sube Singh, R/o K-37 Sanjay Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Housing Board, Jaipur (Raj.).
101. Ravindra Kumar S/o Raghuvir Singh, R/o Panne Singh Pura, Post- Bhudanpura, Tehsil - Surajgarh, Jhunjhunu, (Downloaded on 11/03/2022 at 09:19:01 PM) (8 of 19) [CW-14328/2020] 202966 (Raj.).
102. Rohan Kumar Yadav S/o Naresh Kumar Yadav, R/o Opp.
Bsnl Office, Renwal Road, Ward No. 06, Chomu 303702 (Raj.).
103. Rohit Nagar S/o Purushotam Nagar, R/o 376, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Kota (324005) (Raj.).
104. Roop Chand S/o Nagarmal, R/o Sulkhania Bara, Rajgarh, Churu 331303 (Raj.).
105. Sangeeta W/o Dharmendra Ola, R/o Shanti Nagar Rajgarh Road Pilani 333031 (Raj.).
106. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Rameshwar Lal, R/o Barwasi, Jhunjhunu 333042 (Raj.).
107. Sardar Singh Jat S/o Gigaram, R/o Kalyanpura, Shrimadhopur, Sikar (Raj.).
108. Shripal Siyak S/o Prem Sukh Siyak, R/o Khairwa, Degana, Nagaur, 341503 (Raj.).
109. Sohan Lal Saini S/o Shyam Sundar Saini, R/o Ringas Road Near Puliya Chandoliyo Ki Dhani Chomu Jaipur 33802 (Raj.).
110. Subhash Chand Yadav S/o Babu Lal Yadav, R/o Ward No 33, Krishna Residency, Thana Moad, Kasba Bansur Puliya Ke Pas, Alwar, 301402 (Raj.).
111. Sukhveer Singh S/o Ramnivas, R/o Doodana Ka Vas Jhunjhunu (333707) (Raj.).
112. Suman Kumari D/o Jagdish Prasad, R/o Nahar Singhani Mukundgarh Jhunjhunu 333705 (Raj.).
113. Sumit Karwa S/o Ramniwas Karwa, R/o Village-
Chandpura Tehsil Kuchaman City, Post- Jiliya, Dist Nagaur 341508 (Raj.).
114. Sunil Kumar S/o Mahendra Singh, R/o Ward No. 13, Khemchand Ki Dhani, Dhamora, Jhunjhunu, 333308 (Raj.).
115. Sunil Kumar Prajapat S/o Chunni Lal Prajapat, R/o Samode, Chomu, Jaipur (303806) (Raj.).
116. Sunil Kumar S/o Suresh Kumar, R/o V/p- S/otwara, Tehsil
- Nawalgarh, Jhunjhunu 333707 (Raj.).
117. Sunil Kumar S/o Manoj Kumar, R/o Ward No 7 Mukund Garh, Jhunjhunu 333705 (Raj.).
118. Suresh Kumar Bhadu S/o Swai Ram Bhadu, R/o Juliyasar (Downloaded on 11/03/2022 at 09:19:01 PM) (9 of 19) [CW-14328/2020] Tehsil - Laxamngarh, Sikar Dist Sikar 332318 (Raj.).
119. Suresh Singh S/o Jeevan Singh, R/o V/p Adhaiya Khurd Tehsil Kumher Dist Bharatpur 321202 (Raj.).
120. Sushil Kapri S/o Shanti Ram, R/o Kapriwas, Nagaur -
341511 (Raj.).
121. Talib Husen Rajer S/o Hafad Khan, R/o Rajer Aakal Barmer 344704 (Raj.).
122. Tejendra Rav S/o Hari Ram Rav, Madpura, Nagaur -
341025 (Raj.).
123. Umesh Kumar Choudhary S/o Ammi Lal, Plot No. 91, Dronpuri Colony, 200 Feet Bypass, Heerapura, Girdharipura, Jaipur, 302021(Raj.).
124. Vikas Kumar S/o Sumer Singh, R/o Plot No 306, Shyam Sarowar, Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur, 302012 (Raj.).
125. Vikas Kumar S/o Chhotu Ram, R/o Tehsil Fatehsilpur Tejsar Dist Sikar 332301 (Raj.).
126. Vikas Kumar Sain S/o Ramesh Chand Sain, Gomti Colony, Bayana Moad, Hindaun, Karauli - 322230 (Raj.).
127. Vikash Kumar S/o Bhagirath Singh, House No. 162, Tehsil
- Ratangarh, Biramsar Churu (331022) (Raj.).
128. Vikram Punia S/o Bhagirath Singh, Vpo - Jajod, Tehsil -
Laxmangarh, Sikar (332318) (Raj.).
129. Vikram S/o Satya Narayan, R/o Chirawa Road Ward No 03 Surajgarh Jhunjhunu 333029 (Raj.).
130. Vikramjit Singh S/o Vijendra Singh, R/o Behind Iti College Sardar Patel Nagar Pawanpuri Bikaner 334003 (Raj.).
131. Vimalesh Kumar S/o Hanumana Ram Choudhary, 114, Sampurn Ganv, Kitnod, Barmer, 344022 (Raj.).
132. Vinit Kumar S/o Deendayal Khayaliya, R/o Katrathal, Sikar 332024 (Raj.).
133. Vipin Chandra S/o Maniram Sohu, R/o Ward No 02 Jejusar Jhunjhunu 333707 (Raj.).
134. Vishal Suman S/o Hiralal Suman, 13 Vishal Medical Store, Chand Khedi Road, Khanpur, Jhalawar, 326038 (Raj.).
135. Yogesh Kumar S/o Ramlal Birodi, R/o Chhoti, Laxamangrh, Sikar - 332316 (Raj.).
136. Yogesh Saini S/o Babu Lal Saini, R/o Raghunath Das Ki Bagichi Ke Pass Raiyo Ki Dhani Ward No 30 Chomu Jaipur (Downloaded on 11/03/2022 at 09:19:01 PM) (10 of 19) [CW-14328/2020] (Raj.).
137. Nitika D/o Rajendra Prasad, R/o Ward No.01, Mankdo, Jhunjhunu, 303504 (Raj.).
138. Vinod Kumar S/o Krishan Kumar, R/o Behind Pwd Colony, Nohar, Hanumangarh 335523 (Raj.).
139. Nitesh Kumar S/o Mukhram, R/o Ghisa Ki Dhani, Doomra, Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
140. Mahender Milind S/o Lakeshar Satyapal, R/o Lakeshar, 83 Patel Nagar, Mehila Park Ke Pass, Purani Abadi Ward No.11, Shri Ganganagar 335001 (Raj.).
141. Dinesh Kumar Saini S/o Sita Ram Saini, R/o Ward No. 1, Near Ganesh Mandir, Shrimadhopur, Distt. Sikar (Raj.).
142. Prashant Kumar S/o Gambhir Singh, R/o Tuhiya, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.).
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry And Dairy Department,govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary.
3. Ankit Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh, R/o Village Ekla Murdha, Distt. Varanasi (U.p.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 161/2021
1. Anil Kumar S/o Mahendra Singh Sura, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward No. 9, Basantpura, Ked Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
2. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Ram Gopal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 02, Lohara Road, Surajgarh, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
3. Prakash Kumawat S/o Mohan Kumawat, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Raj Wala Bera, Jaswantpura, Tehsil Pisangan, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry And Dairy Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through (Downloaded on 11/03/2022 at 09:19:01 PM) (11 of 19) [CW-14328/2020] Its Secretary.
3. Ankit Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh, R/o Village Ekla, Distt. Banaras (U.p.)
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah with Mr. Kamlesh Sharma Mr. Akshit Gupta Mr. Harendra Neel Mr. Pukhraj Chawla Mr. Yash Joshi Ms. Sarah Sharma Ms. Pragya Seth For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig (RPSC) Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 08/03/2022
1. These writ petitions since involve common question, hence with consent of the parties, have been heard together and are being decided by the present common order.
2. To examine the controversy, the facts, on request of the parties, have been noticed from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14328/2020, as such the prayer made in this writ petition is reproduced here as under:
"In these circumstances, it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept this writ petition and
i) the impugned result dated 26.11.2020 for not declaring the cut off for respective vertical reserve category and final answer key may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and therefore, same may kindly be quashed and set aside.
ii) by issuing the writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature thereof respondents may kindly be directed to:-
(Downloaded on 11/03/2022 at 09:19:01 PM)(12 of 19) [CW-14328/2020]
a) to declare the category wise cutoff of all vertical and horizontal reserve category including open category;
b) to declare petitioners as qualified for interview if they have secured marks over and above any candidate declared qualified in the result dated 26.11.2020 for general category;
c) to declare the final answer key before proceeding further in the selection process;
d) to declare the weightage of various components of academic marks;
e) to prepare the merit list afresh by adding the weightage of academic marks;
f) to give appointment to humble petitioners on the post of Veterinary Officer with all consequential benefits.
iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioners."
3. By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the selection process initiated by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred as the "Commission"). At the outset, counsel for the petitioners jointly submitted that they have raised certain questions for consideration of this Court in the present petitions and advanced their arguments in respect of not adding the marks towards academics before proceeding for interview.
4. Brief facts of the case of are that the Commission issued an advertisement dated 22.10.2019 for holding selections for the post of Veterinary Officer under the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Services Rules, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred as the "Rules of 1963"). In pursuance thereof the petitioners applied for the post of Veterinary Officer and after holding the screening test, its result was declared by the Commission on 26.11.2020 without declaring (Downloaded on 11/03/2022 at 09:19:01 PM) (13 of 19) [CW-14328/2020] the cut-off marks of the screening test. It has been prescribed in the advertisement that screening test would be of 40 marks, for academics there would be 20 marks and the interview would be of 40 marks, as such the total marks would be 100, as stipulated in the advertisement.
5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the process/procedure adopted by the Commission for holding the selection is contrary to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1963 and in support of contention made a reference of Rule 19 of the Rules, 1963 as well as of the advertisement prescribing marks for each of the three stages, which both are as under :-
"19. Scrutiny of applications:-
The commission shall scrutinise the applications received by them and require as many candidates qualified for appointment under these Rules as seem to them desirable to appear before them for interview.
Provided that the decision of the commission as to the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate, shall be final."
अन्य वविविरण च्यन अभ्यरर्थि्यियों कं के च्यन हं केतह च्यन प्रप्रक प्रक्रि्य्रक्रिया रिया ननया निमन्रक्रियानहम्नानुस्रक्रियार र हं केार रहेगस:- प्रकरक्रि्य्
म्नानुसंवसक्रक्रिया परपरीक्रक्रिया मष प्र्रक्रिया प्रापत कियों अ क्रक्रियादमस क क्रक्रिया म्नानुस्रक्रियाक्रक्रियात क्रक्रियार कहल पूण्रक्रियाणां क क्रक्रिया 40 प्ररिया नतशत भ्रक्रियार्रक्रियां क भ्रक्रियार्रक्रियां क क्रक्रिया भ्रक्रियार्रक्रियां क की ार रहेगणन्रक्रिया Marks secured in screening testx40 Total marks of screening test 40 अं क 20 अं क 40 अं क 100 अं क (Downloaded on 11/03/2022 at 09:19:01 PM) (14 of 19) [CW-14328/2020]
6. Counsel for the petitioners submits that contrary to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1963 & also against their own scheme as prescribed in the advertisement, the Commission after holding the screening test and without adding the marks to be allotted towards the academics, has directly called the candidates for interview whereas the Commission should have proceeded for interview only after adding the marks towards screening test plus the marks towards academics.
7. In support of the contentions, counsels relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sasidhar Reddy Sura Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
reported in (2014) 2 SCC 158 where in para-14 it has been held as under;
"14. The said concept, with regard to the minimum age, has been brought in only from the report of the Commission. For the reasons recorded in the report of the Commission, the Commission was of the view that the post of a District and Sessions Judge, being an important post, which not only requires integrity and intelligence but also requires maturity, the Commission was of the view that a person not having completed 35 years of age should not be appointed to the said post. It is pertinent to note that this was merely a recommendation or suggestion made by the Commission. The recommendation or suggestion, if not supported by the Rules, cannot be implemented. In the instant case, the Rules are silent with regard to the minimum age. It only speaks about the maximum age. In the circumstances, one cannot read provisions incorporated in the report of the Commission into the Rules. The Rules are statutory and framed under the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, if the recommendations made by the Commission and the statutory Rules are at variance, the provisions incorporated in the Recruitment Rules (Downloaded on 11/03/2022 at 09:19:01 PM) (15 of 19) [CW-14328/2020] have to be followed. It is pertinent to note that when such a question had been raised before this Court, in Syed T.A. Naqshbandi's case, this Court had also observed that till relevant recruitment rules are suitably amended so as to incorporate the recommendations made by the Commission, provisions of the statutory rules must be followed."
8. Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi reported in (2008) 7 SCC 11 where in para Nos.14, 15 & 16 it has been held as under;
"14. It is an admitted position that at the beginning of the selection process, no minimum cut-off marks for viva-voce were prescribed for Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination, 2006. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration of the Court is whether introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process was completed would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played. This Court notices that in K.Manjusree Vs.State of A.P., the question posed for consideration of this Court in the instant petitions was considered and answered in the following terms:(SCC pp.526- 27, para 33) "33. The resolution dated 30.11.2004 merely adopted the procedure prescribed earlier. The previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for interview. Therefore, extending the minimum marks prescribed for written examination, to interviews, in the selection process is impermissible. We may clarify that prescription of minimum marks for any interview is not illegal. We have no doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marks both for written examination and interviews, or prescribe minimum marks for written (Downloaded on 11/03/2022 at 09:19:01 PM) (16 of 19) [CW-14328/2020] examination but not for interview, or may not prescribe any minimum marks for either written examination or interview. Where the rules do not prescribe any procedure, the Selection Committee may also prescribe the minimum marks, as stated above. But if the Selection Committee want to prescribe minimum marks for interview, it should do so before the commencement of selection process. If the selection committee prescribed minimum marks only for the written examination, before the commencement of selection process, it cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process, add an additional requirement that the candidates should also secure minimum marks in the interview. What we have found to be illegal, is changing the criteria after completion of the selection process, when the entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the interview."
From the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the abovementioned case it is evident that previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for viva-voce. Therefore, prescribing minimum marks for viva-voce was not permissible at all after the written test was conducted.
15.There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and viva-voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for viva-voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at viva-voce, test was illegal.
(Downloaded on 11/03/2022 at 09:19:01 PM)(17 of 19) [CW-14328/2020]
16. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the decision rendered in K.Manjusree did not notice the decisions in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana: as well as in K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala, and, therefore, should be regarded either as decision per incuriam or should be referred to a larger Bench for reconsideration, cannot be accepted. What is laid down in the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent is that it is always open to the authority making the rules regulating the selection to prescribe the minimum marks both for written examination and interview. The question whether introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview after the entire selection process was completed was valid or nor, never fell for consideration of this Court in the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent. While deciding the case of K.Manjusree the Court noticed the decisions in: (1) P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India; (2) Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India; and (3) Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa, and has thereafter laid down the proposition of law which is quoted above. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case this Court is of the opinion that the decision rendered by this Court in K.Manjusree can neither be regarded as Judgment per incuriam nor good case is made out by the respondent for referring the matter to the larger Bench for reconsidering the said decision."
9. Counsel further submits that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the Authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced, in support thereof counsel placed reliance upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Manjusree Vs. State of A.P. & Ors., reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512.
10. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent(s) while opposing the writ petitions submitted that it is within the discretion of the Commission to adjudge the suitability of the candidate and to evolve the method for recruitment. Counsel fairly (Downloaded on 11/03/2022 at 09:19:01 PM) (18 of 19) [CW-14328/2020] admitted that they have not added the marks of academics while calling the candidates for interview and they will add the marks towards the academics after the interview is held.
11. Counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors. Vs. Abdul Halim & Ors., reported in 2019 (18) SCC 39.
12. Counsel further relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Baloji Badhavath & Ors., reported in (2009) 5 SCC 1 and further on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme in the matter of Pranav Verma & Ors. Vs. The Registrar General of High Court of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh & Anr. reported in 2019 (2) SCT 814 (SC).
13. Counsel further relied on the judgment passed by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Vijendra Singh Dudi Vs. State of Rajasthan and other connected matters (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6657/2020, decided on 07.04.2021).
14. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
15. These writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be allowed for the reasons; firstly, a bare reading of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1963 clearly shows that although it is the discretion of the recruiting agency to adopt any suitable procedure for appointment and to adjudge the suitability of the candidate but the same cannot be done contrary to their own advertisement; secondly, as per the selection process prescribed in the advertisement, total 40 marks have been fixed towards screening test, 20 marks towards academics, followed with the interview of 40 marks, thus it is clear that the marks awarded towards screening test plus the marks (Downloaded on 11/03/2022 at 09:19:01 PM) (19 of 19) [CW-14328/2020] towards academics would be taken into consideration before proceeding for interview and therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the writ petitions deserve acceptance and the result dated 26.11.2020 needs to be quashed. However, it is made clear that in the present judgment only the question of not adding the marks of academics has been considered and the other questions are kept open.
16. In that view of the matter, the writ petitions are allowed. The result declared by the respondents dated 26.11.2020 is quashed.
The Commission is directed to first add the marks of screening test (40 marks) and of academics (20 marks) and only after declaring the revised results in terms thereof, shall proceed to hold the interview. The other questions are kept open as observed above.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J CHETNA BEHRANI /148,149,150 (Downloaded on 11/03/2022 at 09:19:01 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)