Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs Ravi Kumar Rachhoya S/O Bhairu Lal … on 30 June, 2025
Author: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
[2025:RJ-JP:23785-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 417/2024
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through The Secretary,
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ravi Kumar Rachhoya S/o Bhairu Lal Rachhoya, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o A-130B, Shyam Mitra Mandal Nagar,
Vkia Road No. 5, Murlipura, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Dharm Pal S/o Raji Ram, aged about 35 years, R/o Village
4Kk, Tehsil Padampur Via Chunawadh, 4Kk
Sriganganagar(Raj.)
3. Deputy Secretary, Skill, Employment And
Entrepreneurship Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. MF Baig
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA
Order
30/06/2025
1. Heard.
2. This appeal arises out of an interim order dated 28.05.2024
passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the respondent-writ
petitioner has been provisionally allowed to participate in the
training programme, though making it clear that the candidature
of the writ petitioner shall be subject to the final outcome of the
writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Rajasthan Public
Service Commission would submit that such a direction amounts
to finally allowing the writ petition and it is virtually an order
(Downloaded on 01/07/2025 at 09:58:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:23785-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-417/2024]
granting final relief. He would submit that change in preference is
not permissible under any circumstance in view of authoritative
pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Manish
Bakawale & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7721 of 2021), decided on
17.12.2021.
4. Irrespective of the merits of the case, we find that the order
of the learned Single Judge is only of provisional nature. It makes
very clear that the candidature of the writ petitioner is subject to
the final outcome of the writ petition. That clearly means that in
the event the writ petition is dismissed, the petitioner will have to
be ousted.
5. Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner and that the issue has been now settled by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Public
Service Commission (supra), we would request the learned
Single Judge to finally hear and decide the petition itself one way
or the other on merits, on the next date of hearing.
6. With the said observations, the appeal is dismissed. Pending
application, if any, also stands dismissed.
(MANEESH SHARMA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
KAMLESH KUMAR-RAHUL/14
(Downloaded on 01/07/2025 at 09:58:44 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)