Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Jasveer Singh vs Rajasthan High Court on 5 March, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:9292-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17312/2024
Jasveer Singh S/o Charanjeet Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Odan
Wali Dhani, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Its Registrar
General, Jodhpur.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Balia Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Sachin Saraswat
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Abhilasha Bora
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Order
RESERVED ON :: 06/02/2025
PRONOUNCED ON :: 05/03/2025
(Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.):
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following
reliefs :-
“a) The petitioner may be declared qualified for the
Interview :
b) The Respondent may be directed to migrate the
Petitioner from OBC Category to General-ESM Category:
c) The Respondent may be directed to allow the
Petitioner to appear in the interview;
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:9292-DB] (2 of 11) [CW-17312/2024]
d) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court
deems just and properr may kindly be passed in favour
of the humble petitioner.”
2. The brief facts as noticed by this Court are that the
respondents issued an advertisement dated 09.04.2024 notifying
vacancies for recruitment to the Cadre of Civil Judge, 2024. The
petitioner, possessing all requisite qualifications, applied for the
aforementioned post under the OBC NCL category on 07.05.2024.
2.1 A corrigendum was issued by the respondent on 08.05.2024
i.e. on the last date of submitting the application whereby one
post for Ex-Servicemen under General Category was notified. The
petitioner, being an Ex-Serviceman, accordingly edited his
application form to submit under the Ex-servicemen Category.
Subsequently, the admission card was issued to the petitioner,
who appeared in and successfully cleared the preliminary
examination held on 23.06.2024, as per the result declared on
15.07.2024.
2.2 The respondent again issued a corrigendum dated
27.07.2024 whereby the cut-off marks in category of General (Ex-
Servicemen) was issued. The petitioner, having qualified for the
main examination, appeared therein on 31.08.2024 and
01.09.2024. The result for the same was declared on 01.10.2024
wherein the petitioner was declared unqualified for appearing in
the interview. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Sachin
Saraswat, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Ex-
Servicemen reserved category candidate can claim general
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:9292-DB] (3 of 11) [CW-17312/2024]
category seat under horizontal reservation based on merit.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had secured
marks exceeding the minimum requirement for eligibility under
the Ex-servicemen category.
3.1 Learned counsel further submitted that as per the
corrigendum dated 08.05.2024, candidates belonging to the Ex-
servicemen category were deemed eligible for interview upon
obtaining minimum 30% marks in each law paper and 35% marks
in aggregate in the main examination. Learned counsel also
submitted that despite fulfilling these criteria, the petitioner was
overlooked for migration from OBC NCL Category to General
Category for Ex-servicemen reservation.
3.2 Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner did not
avail any age relaxation that could have barred his migration from
OBC NCL category to General Ex-servicemen category. It was
further contended that when horizontal reservation for women
(special reservation) in general/open category is applied,
candidates from all categories, including SC, ST, and OBC, are
entitled to consideration against posts reserved for General
Category (Woman).
3.3 Learned counsel further submitted that posts reserved for
General category (Ex-servicemen) were available to all Ex-
servicemen candidates, necessitating migration. It was further
contended that though the petitioner was permitted to apply
under Ex-servicemen category within OBC NCL, but the
reservation was actually available under General Ex-servicemen
Category. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s case
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:9292-DB] (4 of 11) [CW-17312/2024]
merits consideration under General Category (Ex-servicemen) as
reserved category candidates can claim general category seats
under horizontal reservation based on merit.
3.4 In support of the aforementioned submissions, learned
counsel has relied upon the following judgments :-
i. Deependra Yadav & ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.,
reported in AIR 2024 SC 2147.
Rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.9628/2024 along with other connected matters on
20.08.2024.
iii. Saurav Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Reported in AIR 2021 SC 233.
iv. Megha Sheety Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. rendered by this
Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.17/2013 on
26.07.2013.
v. Asha Vs. The President, District Selection Committee /
Collector & ors. rendered by Bombay High Court in Writ
Petition No.3929/2015 on 30.3.2016.
4. Ms. Abhilasha Bora, Learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that Rule 2(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter to be
referred as ‘the Rules of 1988’) provides for 5% reservation of
posts in State Services for Ex-servicemen, to be filled through
direct recruitment. It was further submitted that sub-rule 3 of Rule
2 of the Rules of 1988 stipulates such reservation to be horizontal
and category-wise. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1988 read
as under :-
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:9292-DB] (5 of 11) [CW-17312/2024]
“The reservation of vacancies for ex-servicemen as
specified in sub-rule (1) shall be category wise in direct
recruitment. In the event of non-availability of the
eligible and suitable ex-servicemen in a particular year,
the vacancies so reserved for them shall be filled in
accordance with the normal procedure and equal number
of vacancies shall be carried forward to the next
recruitment year and thereafter such vacancies would
lapse.”
4.1 Learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn attention
of this Court towards the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010,
wherein reservation for Ex-servicemen has been provided in the
recruitment process through the addition of sub-rule 7 to Rule 10.
New sub-rule 7 reads as under :-
“7. Reservation of vacancies for Ex-servicemen –
Reservation of vacancies for Ex-servicemen in the
recruitment to the service shall be in accordance with
the rules of the State issued from time to time.”
4.2 Learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to the
Official Gazette publication of the amendment, necessary
corrigendum was issued and vacancies were revised accordingly.
The corrigendum clearly provided that Ex-servicemen reservation
would operate horizontally against category-wise vacancies. It was
further submitted that the petitioner made a conscious decision to
apply under OBC NCL category with horizontal Ex-servicemen
reservation.
4.3 Learned counsel also submitted that the initial advertisement
dated 09.04.2024 was modified by a revised notification dated
07.05.2024 and subsequent corrigendum dated 08.05.2024,
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:9292-DB] (6 of 11) [CW-17312/2024]
clearly stipulating the provision for Ex-servicemen reservation. It
was contended that the present petition, filed on 15.10.2024
seeking migration from OBC-NCL to General Ex-servicemen
Category, comes after the corrigendum dated 07.05.2024 had
specifically allocated one seat for Ex-servicemen under General
Category.
4.4 Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner with
open eyes accepted the Ex-servicemen OBC-NCL Category and did
not opt for Ex-servicemen General Category, despite the
advertisement / corrigendum specifying only one seat for Ex-
servicemen reservation. As the petitioner did not challenge the
corrigendum dated 07.05.2024 at the relevant time, this belated
challenge on 15.10.2024 cannot be entertained.
4.5 Learned counsel also submitted that after the preliminary
examination, the petitioner had secured cut-off marks while
clearing it in vertical category of OBC-NCL and thus, he was fixed
in the OBC-NCL and could not have been considered against the
General Ex-servicemen Category thereafter.
4.6 Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner
secured 120 marks in the main examination conducted on
31.08.2024 and 01.09.2024, whereas the cut-off for OBC NCL
category was 123 marks. Consequently, the petitioner was
rightfully declared unsuccessful and ineligible for interview. It was
further submitted that no candidate from General Category (Ex-
servicemen) secured the minimum qualifying marks in the main
examination, hence no candidates were called for interview.
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:9292-DB] (7 of 11) [CW-17312/2024]
4.7 Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner had
previously filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition no.751/2024 on
02.05.2024, seeking invalidation of the advertisement dated
09.04.2024 regarding implementation of amendments made vide
notification dated 16.03.2024 and gazette notification dated
28.03.2024 concerning Ex-servicemen vacancy reservation and
age relaxation. It was further submitted that the petitioner had
not disclosed the factum of an earlier petition filed by him, after
which corrigendum notifications dated 7 th, 8th, and 9th May, 2024
were also issued for vacancy re-determination.
4.8 Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner,
without challenging the corrigendum notification and with full
awareness of the single seat allocation for Ex-servicemen General
category, appeared for the preliminary examination on
23.06.2024, results of which were declared in July, 2024.
4.9 Learned counsel had cited the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Rekha Sharma Vs. The Rajasthan High
Court, Jodhpur (Civil Appeal No.5051/2023) decided on
21.08.2024, which specifically held that candidates who
consciously participated in the selection process cannot
subsequently challenge the advertisement or selection
methodology upon being declared unsuccessful in the preliminary
examination.
4.10 In support of above contention, learned counsel for the
respondent has relied upon the following judgments :-
I. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Dr. Megha
Sharma & ors. (D.B. Review Petition No.180/2019), decided
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:9292-DB] (8 of 11) [CW-17312/2024]by this Court on 23.03.2020; relevant para whereof reads as
under :-
“12. The upshot of the aforesaid judgements of the
Hon’ble Apex Court and division benches of this Court
is that migration is not to be applied while shortlisting
the candidates for interview/main exam after
subjecting them to screening test and it has to be
applied at the time of final selection i.e. preparing the
final merit list only. Since, there was no categorywise
interview, the judgement dated 8.5.2019 qua its
findings recorded in paragraph 2 at internal page 8,
suffers from the error apparent on its face. Therefore,
the review petitions are allowed, the judgement dated
8.5.2019 is recalled and set aside to the extent
directions contained therein requiring the RPSC to
subject all the candidates declared successful in the
screening process together for interview, prepare a
combined merit list and thereafter work out the revise
merit list giving due weightage to the rule of
migration. ”
ii. Sunita Meena Vs. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr.
(D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1244/2022) decided by this Court
on 20.04.2022; relevant para whereof reads as under :-
“34.The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Saurav Yadav (supra) has now settled the
controversy with regard to principles applicable in the
matter of vertical and horizontal migration while
preparing merit list, that being a case specific to
claim of OBC (female) securing higher marks than
the last candidate appointed in general category of
general (female). In the light of consistent view by
this Court in series of decisions cited hereinabove,
the rule of migration of reserved category candidate
from his/her own category to general category to be
placed in the merit list would be applicable while
preparing final merit list and not when the exercise
of shortlisting of candidates categorywise is done at
the stage of screening by way of preliminary
examinations, as has been done in the present case.
Issue whether the principle of migration would apply
even at the stage of shortlisting the candidates for
being admitted to main examination was neither(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:9292-DB] (9 of 11) [CW-17312/2024]raised nor decided in the case of Saurav Yadav
(supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner could not
bring to our notice any authoritative pronouncement
of the Supreme Court in this regard. Therefore, we
have no reason to take a different view than what
has been taken in the cases of Dharamveer Tholia
(supra), Hanuman Jat (supra), Megha Sharma
(supra), Khushi Ram Gurjar (supra) and Garima
Sharma (supra)which are the judgments rendered by
taking into consideration the scheme of examination
and governing rules of recruitment analogous to
those applicable in the case in hand.”
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing
the record of the case as well as the precedent law cited by
counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner made a
conscious decision to appear as an OBC-NCL category candidate in
the vertical category while also opting for Ex-servicemen in the
horizontal category. The advertisement dated 07.05.2024
culminated in the petitioner’s disqualification on merits at the
main examination stage.
6. This Court observes that the petitioner underwent the
examination process under OBC-NCL Category without protest,
despite OBC-NCL carrying no Ex-servicemen reservation. However,
in the absence of any OBC-NCL Ex-servicemen post, the
petitioner’s status remains that of an unsuccessful OBC-NCL
candidate.
7. This Court finds that while Rule 1(2) of the Rajasthan Judicial
Service (Amendment) Rules, 2024 and Sub-rule 3 of Rule 2 of the
Rules of 1988 provide for Ex-servicemen reservation as horizontal
reservation, and that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to
either challenge the corrigendum when issued pursuant to the
advertisement or contest it promptly, rather than allowing his
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:9292-DB] (10 of 11) [CW-17312/2024]
rights to lapse. In the absence of horizontal reservation for Ex-
servicemen within OBC-NCL, the question of migration from OBC-
NCL to General Category under Ex-servicemen quota cannot be
entertained, particularly because the petitioner participated in the
recruitment process with open eyes as Ex-Servicemen in OBC-
NCL category while there was no reservation for Ex-Servicemen in
OBC-NCL category.
8. This Court observes that the petitioner did not challenge the
corrigendum specifying one seat for Ex-servicemen General
Category reservation and continued to take part in the process.
The petitioner, in pursuance of his status in vertical category OBC-
NCL and Ex-servicemen category, cleared the preliminary
examination held on 23.06.2024, for which the result was
declared on 15.07.2024. In pursuance of such successful
qualifying to the main examination, the petitioner appeared in the
mains examination with open eyes in the continuing category of
OBC-NCL (Ex-servicemen) Category on 31.8.2024 and 1.09.2024.
The result of the mains examination was declared on 01.10.2024
and the petitioner was declared unsuccessful on merits. The
petitioner made a belated challenge on 15.10.2024 to such result.
The petitioner had secured 120 marks in the mains examination
conducted on 31.08.2024 and 01.09.2024 whereas the cut-off for
OBC-NCL category was 123 marks, thus disqualifying the
petitioner for the next phase of interview. This Court is of the firm
opinion that candidates who have consciously participated in the
selection process cannot subsequently challenge the
advertisement or selection methodology upon being declared
unsuccessful at a particular stage. Such finding is also supported
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:9292-DB] (11 of 11) [CW-17312/2024]
by the precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Rekha Sharma (supra).
9. In view of the forgoing, the present writ petition is
dismissed.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
26-Sudheer/-
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:41:22 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)