Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Sandeep Nagora Son Of Shri R.N. Nagora vs Rajasthan High Court … on 6 March, 2025
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Bhuwan Goyal
[2025:RJ-JP:10107-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3315/2025
Sandeep Nagora Son Of Shri R.N. Nagora, Aged About 45 Years,
R/o. 11 Nagora Niwas, Outside Nehru Gate, Beawar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar
General.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. AK Sharma, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Vishnu Kant Sharma
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Order
06/03/2025
1. Heard.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner seeks to challenge the rejection of his candidature in
the matter of direct recruitment to the cadre of District Judge. The
process of selection was commenced with issuance of
advertisement on 09.07.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that in
fulfillment of requirement of Rule 36 of the Rajasthan Judicial
Service Rules, 2010 (for short ‘the Rules of 2010’), along with the
application, the petitioner had submitted copies of ten judgments
wherein he claimed to have personally argued the matter.
However, after scrutiny, a notification was issued on 14.01.2025,
which notified deficiencies. The deficiencies, as pointed out in the
case of the petitioner, were that three judgments are of a period
beyond seven years from the date of submission of application.
Thereafter, the petitioner submitted copies of three orders passed
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:59:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10107-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-3315/2025]
in the cases of State of Rajasthan Vs. Maheshchand @ Mahesh
Kumar (Criminal Case No.421/2019, dated 23.08.2024), State of
Rajasthan Vs. Jalaluddin (CIS No.3384/2014, dated 23.01.2025)
and State Vs. Prabhu Kathat (Regular Criminal Case No.676/2023
(1304/2014), dated 23.01.2025). However, his application has
been wrongly rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to
submit ten judgments in conformity with Rule 36 of the Rules of
2010.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the
petitioner having submitted three more judgments which were
personally argued by him within the stipulated period, the
requirement of submission of ten judgments, where the candidate
personally argued, was fully complied with.
4. On advance copy, Mr. AK Sharma, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents would point out that the
judgments which have been subsequently submitted by the
petitioner were all subsequent to the date of submission of
application form, therefore, the requirement of Rule 36 of the
Rules of 2010 that ten judgments should be of the preceding
seven years, is not fulfilled.
He would submit that last date of submission of application
form was 09.08.2024 and, therefore, the judgments rendered
prior to that date alone could be taken into consideration and not
thereafter.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would reply by way of
rejoinder and submit that once the petitioner was granted
opportunity to remove the deficiency vide notification dated
14.01.2025 upto 24.01.2025, the requirement of the Rule stood
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:59:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10107-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-3315/2025]
relaxed to that extent and, therefore, judgments rendered after
the last date of submission of application form, but before
24.01.2025 satisfy the requirement of law.
6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for
both the parties.
7. Rule 36 of the Rules of 2010 reads as below:-
“36. Submission of application.- (1) While submitting
application, candidate shall furnish particulars of 10
judgments of the preceding seven years. He shall produce
the certified copies of such judgments before the Main
Examination, as prescribed by the Recruiting Authority. The
Candidate is required to provide particulars of final
orders/judgments personally argued by him, not being
interlocutory orders, bail orders, orders based on
compromise or orders of withdrawal of case.
(2) Every application shall be accompanied by a certificate
in the format as prescribed by the Recruiting Authority, from
the District Judge concerned where ordinarily the applicant
is practicing, as to the character and length of actual
practice of the candidate along with such other documents
as may be specified.
In case the applicant is practicing in the High Court, the
certifying authority shall be Registrar of the concerned
High Court and if he is practicing in the Supreme Court, the
certifying authority shall be the Registrar of the Supreme
Court.”
On an apparent reading of the Rule, it is clear that while
submitting application form, the candidate is required to furnish
the particulars of ten judgments of the preceding seven years. The
petitioner has placed before the Court the application form
submitted by him. The petitioner certified and verified that he
possesses certified copies of all the ten judgments mentioned in
the list, which have been pronounced within seven years
preceding the last date of submission of application form and that
these cases were personally argued by him and not interlocutory
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:59:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10107-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-3315/2025]
orders, bail orders, orders passed on compromise or orders of
withdrawal of case.
8. Rule 36 of the Rules of 2010 provides that judgments should
be of the preceding seven years. The preceding seven years
period, in the absence of any other stipulation, has to be read as
seven years preceding the last date of submission of the
application form. By no stretch of imagination, Rule 36 of the
Rules of 2010 can be read in the manner that judgment rendered
even thereafter, could be taken into consideration.
That is what is clearly reflected in the application form and
declaration given by the petitioner himself.
9. The three judgments which were submitted by the petitioner
subsequently to remove the deficiencies are those judgments,
which are rendered after the last date of submission of application
form, i.e., 09.08.2024.
10. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that once
the petitioner was allowed to remove the deficiencies vide
notification dated 14.01.2025 upto 24.01.2025, the Rule stood
automatically relaxed, cannot be accepted. The purpose of giving
one opportunity to remove deficiencies was to submit three
judgments which in any case, must conform to the requirement of
Rule 36 of the Rules of 2010 and not those which do not confirm
to the requirement of law.
11. Therefore, no case is made out for any interference.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
RAJAT-RAHUL/14
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 09:59:21 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)