Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Amar Singh Saini S/O Shri Babu Lal Saini vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 January, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2024:RJ-JP:52670]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
Group 'A'
(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8568/2024
Shalendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Mool Chand Yadav, Aged About
36 Years, R/o VPO Banar, Tehsil And District Kotputli, District
Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, through its
Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer
4. Priyanshi Yadav (Roll No. 203768) D/o Shri Arvind Yadav,
Resident House No. 107, Flat No. 103, Vishweshariya
Nagar, Near Triveni Chouraha Ke Pass, Radha Swami
Satsang Park Ke Samne, Jaipur- 302005
5. Virendra Singh S/o Shri Keshram Gurjar, R/o Village &
Post Badagaon, Tehsil Nandauti, District Karauli-322216
6. Shri Abhijeet Purohit (Roll No. 204010) S/o Shri Dr. Raja
Purohit, R/o Prayag Bhawan, Ladji Ke Bere Ke Samne,
Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur
----Respondents
Connected With
(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14022/2024
1. Virendra Singh S/o Shri Govind Singh, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Olagarh, Kheri, Radan Sikar Rajasthan, Roll
No. 203384
2. Kiran Kumari Khichar C/o Mukesh Haritwal, Aged About
35 Years, R/o Ward No.9 Haritwalo Ki Dhani, Dheengpur,
Sikar Rajasthan, Roll No. 203573
3. Anuj Kumar S/o Shri Ram Niwas, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Dheengi Churu, Dhingi Rajasthan, Roll No. 201076
4. Amit Kumar Lavania S/o Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o C.76, Rajendra Prasad Nagar, Badar
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (2 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
Vas, Ward No.19, Jaipur Rajasthan, Roll No.203410
5. Yash Bhargava S/o Shri Dr. Sandeep Bhargava, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o 1262/3, A- Deeg Gali, Kachchi
Sadak, Mathura, Uttar-Pradesh, Roll No. 202687
6. Rahul Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Satish Kumar Sharma,
Aged About 31 Years, R/o Sinchai Vibhag Ke Saamne,
Kamala Colony, Dhaulpur, Rajasthan, Roll No.200605
7. Puneet Jain S/o Shri Paras Kumar Jain, Aged About 31
Years, R/o C-79-80, Malviya Nagar, Alwar, Rajasthan, Roll
No.203200
8. Abhishek Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Manoj Kumar Pandey,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ward No.4, Shakti Nagar
Purani, Abadi, Ganganagar, Rajasthan, Roll No.201337
9. Ashok Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Khuma Ram
Choudhary, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Gang Gong Jalor,
Rajasthan, Roll No.204157
10. Arvind Beniwal S/o Shri Amrit Singh Beniwal, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Mandawara, Hindaun City, Karauli,
Rajasthan, Roll No.200631
11. Pawan Kumar Katewa S/o Shri Chand Singh, Aged About
36 Years, R/o Alipur, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Roll
No.203053
12. Amit Kumar S/o Shri Ashok Kumar, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Ondela Road, Dholpur, Dhaulpur, Rajasthan, Roll
No.200600
13. Manvendra Singh S/o Bhawan Singh, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Belara, Kalan, Bharatpur Rajasthan, Roll
No.200504
14. Karamveer Choudhary S/o Shri Ramniwas Choudhary,
Aged About 30 Years, R/o Durana, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan,
Roll No.203036
15. Pankaj Beniwal S/o Shri Nemichand Beniwal, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Village Kua Stand, Raghunathpura,
Derwala, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Roll No.202795
16. Kartika Nagar D/o Amar Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o B-
7, Road No.1, Krishana Nagar, Police Line, Nayapura, Kota
Rajasthan, Roll No.204532
17. Rajveer Singh S/o Shri Hari Narayan Jat, Aged About 31
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (3 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
Years, R/o 117, Gandhi Chowk, Gram Bobadi The- Jamwa
Ramgarh, Jaipur, VTC- Bobari, Sub District
Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan, Roll No.203320
18. Manaswini Sharma D/o Raghuveer Sharma, Aged About
35 Years, R/o N-H, The Chomu Kalu Ka Bas Colony,
Govindgarh, Jaipur Rajasthan, Roll No.203369
19. Liladhar S/o Lal Chand, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward
No. 26, Gali No.3, Surya Nagar, Hanumangarh, Town 8
SSW, Kohlan, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan, Roll No.201290
20. Anurag S/o Shri Ramawtar, Aged About 34 Years,
Nawalgarh Road, Kisan Colony, Sikar, Rajasthan, Roll
No.203622
21. Asif Mohamad S/o Asfak Mohamad, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o 2-C-56, Housing Board Senthi, Chittaurgarh,
Rajasthan, Roll No.204552
22. Vinod Yadav S/o Shri Shiv Ram Yadav, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Ward No-19, Bhomaka Ki Dhani, Chomu,
Tripolia Chomu, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Roll No.203297
23. Soniya Damor C/o Yatish Bamniya, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Village Malwasa, Post Sangod, District Banswara,
Rajasthan , Roll No.205059
24. Komal Khichar C/o Neeraj Periwal, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o A-206, Vatika Enclave, Jaipur Road, Bikaner, PO-
Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan, Roll No.202872
25. Ayush Pareek C/o Naresh Sharma, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Gully No. 5, Near Vande Matram Chowk,
Radhakishanpura, VTC- Radha Kishanpura (Rural) PO
Sikar, Sub District Sikar, Rajasthan , Roll No.203680
26. Sunita Kumari W/o Vishal Kumar, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Ghoriwara Kalan, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Roll No.
203070
27. Rohit Kumar Tiwari S/o Ramavatar Sharma, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Sabdawali, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa,
Rajasthan , Roll No. 203411
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry Department, Government Secretariat,
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (4 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, through its
Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer.
4. Tarachand S/o Shri Narayan Ram, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Village Bajiyasar, Post Kitalsar, Tehsil Degana, District
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
5. Santosh D/o Shri Ganesh Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Village Khokhara Tehsil Sojat District Pali, Rajasthan.
6. Mrinal Verma S/o Shri Yogeshwar, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o I-E-22, New Housing Road, Khoda Ganesh Ji Road,
Madanganj, Kisshangarh, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
7. Sachin Patidar S/o Shri Manoj Kumar Patidar, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Mukam, Post Dovra, Tehsil Dungarpur,
District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
8. Himanshu Saini S/o Shri Anand Saini, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Near Goinka School, Ward No. 59, Tehsil
Churu, District Churu, Rajasthan.
9. Jayanu Parmar D/o Shri Rajesh Parmar, Aged About 28
Years, R/o VPO Mahuwal, Post Sarera, Tehsil Kherwara,
District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14868/2024
1. Amar Singh Saini S/o Shri Babu Lal Saini, Aged About 31
Years, R/o 700, Dhani Sheraala, Tehsil Khetri, Village
Babai, District Jhujhunu
2. Kapil Kumar Godara S/o Shri Nand Lal, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Village And Post Dhandhan, Sikar
3. Hitesh Kumar S/o Shri Tara Chand Poonia, Aged About 29
Years, R/o VPO Nua, Poonia Market Nua, District
Jhunjhunu
4. Raj Kumar Saran S/o Shri Sukha Ram Saran, Aged About
37 Years, R/o Village And Post Daudsar, Tehsil Ratangarh,
District Churu
5. Kamal Kishore Jakhar S/o Shri Manga Ram Jakhar, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 07, Hanuman Nagar,
Khivtana, Post Dotina, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (5 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
6. Dharmveer Singh S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Village Badki Dhani, Post and Tehsil
Gudagaudji, District Jhunjhunu
7. Vikas Kumar S/o Shri Shishupal Singh, Aged About 33
Years, R/o VPO Kaseru, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District
Jhunjhunu
8. Pooja Nimber D/o Shri Sitaram Nimber, Aged About 32
Years, R/o 964, Sankhwas, PO Sankhwas, District
Nagaur-341028 Nagaur
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, through its
Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer
4. Tara Chand S/o Sh. Narayan Ram DOB – 11.06.1993
Registration No.-RSVC/5751/2020, Address- Village-
Bajiyasar, Post- Kitalsar, Tehsil- Degana, District- Nagaur,
(Rajasthan) Pin-341503
5. Santosh D/o Sh. Ganesh Ram DOB – 01.07.1994
Registration No.- RSVC/5730/2020, Address- Village-
Khokhara, Tehsil- Sojat, District- Pali, (Rajasthan) Pin-
306306
6. Mrinal Verma S/o Sh. Yogeshwar DOB -05.03.1996
Registration No.- RSVC/5798/2020, Address – I-E-22,
New Housing Board, Khoda Ganesh Ji Road, Madangang-
Kisshangarh, District- Ajmer, (Rajasthan) Pin-305801
7. Sachin Patidar S/o Sh. Manoj Kumar Patidar DOB-
15.11.1995 Registration No.- RSVC/5818/2021, Address-
Mukam, Post- Dovra, Tehsil- Dungarpur, District-
Dungarpur (Rajasthan) Pin- 314036
8. Himanshu Saini D/o Sh. Anand Saini DOB. – 07.05.1995
Registration No.- RSVC/5692/2020, Address- Near Goinka
School, Ward No. 59, Tehsil- Churu, District – Churu
(Rajasthan) Pin- 331001
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (6 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
9. Jayanu Parmar D/o Sh. Rajesh Parmar DOB – 09.05.1996
Registration No.- RSVC/5693/2020, Address- VPO –
Mahuwal, Post- Sarera, Tehsil- Kherwara, District- Udaipur
(Rajasthan) Pin- 313804
10. Gireesh Joshi S/o Shri Jitendra Kumar Joshi, R/o Plot No.
80, Nalanda Vihar, Maharani Farm, Dugapura, Jaipur
District Jaipur (Raj.)
—-Respondents
(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14887/2024
1. Gajendra Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 35
Years, R/o 243-244, Madhav Nagar, Opp. Durgapura
Railway Station, Durgapura Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Himanshu Raj Singh Chunwawat S/o Shri Mahipal Singh
Chundawat, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Gara Ekling
Ji, Tehsil Aspur, Gram Panchayat Khera Aspur, Dungarpur.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Department of
Animal Husbandry, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, through its
Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer.
—-Respondents
(5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17266/2024
1. Durga Ram S/o Khema Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Naino Ki School, Siyalo Ki Dhani, Village Raichandpura,
Post – Bhojasar, Tehsil – Baitu, District Barmer. (Roll
Number – 204099).
2. Praveen Panwar S/o Kishore Kumar, Aged About 33
Years, R/o 18E225, Chopasani Housing Board, Backside
ICICI Bank, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur. (Roll Number –
204097).
3. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Surendra Kumar, Aged About 37
Years, R/o V/P – Kumawas, Tehsil – Nawalgarh, District
Jhunjhunu. (Roll Number – 203065).
4. Mukesh Kumar S/o Bhoop Singh, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o House No. 1581, Sector-20, Part-2, HSVP, Sirsa,
District Sirsa, Hariyana. (Roll Number – 200023).
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (7 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
5. Sunil Kumar S/o Ram Narayan, Aged About 34 Years, R/
o Gugurwalo Ka Mohalla, Chuwa, Degana, District
Nagaur. (Roll Number – 200023).
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, through its
Secretary Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer.
4. Priyanshi Yadav D/o Shri Arvind Yadav, (Roll No.
203768) R/o House No. 107, Flat No. 103,
Vishweshariya Nagar, Near Triveni Chouraha, Opposite
Radha Swami Satsang Park, Jaipur – 3020005 (Mobile
9462941309)
5. Virendra Singh S/o Shri Kesharam Gurjar, R/o Village
Post Badagaon, Tehsil Nandauti, District Karauli –
322216 (Mobile 8107428186).
6. Shri Abhijeet Purohit S/o Shri Dr. Raja Purohit, (Roll No.
204010) R/o Prayag Bhawan, Ladji Ke Nearby Locality
Centre, Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur (Mobile 9660134102).
—-Respondents
Group ‘B’
(6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3965/2024
Dr. Abhijeet Purohit S/o Dr. Raja Purohit, Aged About 26 Years,
R//o 17E/732, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.).
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Department
of Animal Husbandry, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, through its
Secretary, Ajmer.
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (8 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
3. Veterinary Council of India, through its Secretary,
Address- A Wing, 2nd Floor, Aurust Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi.
4. Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences
(Rajuvas), through its Registrar, Vijay Bhawan, Near
Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Circle, Bikaner.
5. Aravali Veterinary College, through its Principal, NH-52,
Bajor District Sikar.
—-Respondents
(7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17934/2023
1. Dr. Pushpendra Chawla Khatik S/o Piru Lal Chawla
Khatik, Aged About 27 Years, R/o VPO Daulatgarh,
Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
2. Dr. Bal Ram Meena S/o Teeka Ram Meena, Aged About
32 Years, R/o VPO Samleti, Tehsil Mahwa, District
Dausa (Raj.).
3. Dr. Rahul Maurya S/o Suresh Kumar Maurya, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Village Jodhpura, Tehsil Kotputli,
District Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Dr. Kaishav Kumar Bairwa S/o Banwari Lal, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Meena Colony, Near Defense School,
Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Department
of Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer, through
its Secretary.
3. Veterinary Council Of India, A-Wing, 2nd Floor, August
Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi,
through its Secretary.
4. Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences
(Rajuvas), R/o Vijay Bhawan, Near Pandit Deendayal
Upadhyay Circle, Bikaner, through its Registrar.
5. College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner
through its Principal.
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (9 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
6. College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, R/o
Nawania, Vallabh Nagar, Udaipur, through its Principal.
7. Post Graduate Institute of Veterinary Education and
Research (Pgiver), R/o NH-11, Agra Road, Jamdoli,
Jaipur, through its Dean And Chairman.
8. Aravali Veterinary College, NH-52, Bajor, District Sikar,
through its Principal.
—-Respondents
(8) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18234/2023
1. Dr. Arvind S/o Shri Subhash Dhaka, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Plot No.3, Nursing Colony, Opp. High Court
Colony, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.)-342001.
2. Dr. Gajendra Singh S/o Shri Samandra Singh, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Village Melawas, Post Musaliya,
Tehsil Marwar Junction, District Pali (Raj.)-306103.
3. Dr. Yogesh Dokwal S/o Shri Kailash Sharma, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Near Clock Tower, Maru Street,
Ward No.30, Sikar (Raj)- 332001.
4. Dr. Kapil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Norang Lal Sharma,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o Nehru Nagar, Teshil Nohar,
District Hanumgnarh (Raj.)
5. Dr. Harendra Singh Rajoriya S/o Shri Subhash Chand,
Aged About 26 Years, R/o VPO Mator, Tehsil
Mundawar, District Alwar (Raj.)-301404.
6. Dr. Nupur Pandey D/o Shri Om Prakash Pandey, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o C-181, Agrasen Nagar, Churu
(Raj.)- 331001.
7. Dr. Warsha Choudhary D/o Shri Ramesh Chand, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o 80 Feet Road, Ward No.20,
Ganga Colony, Kherliganj, Alwar (Raj.)- 321606.
8. Dr. Kusum Meghwal D/o Shri Narayan Lal Meghwal,
Aged About 26 Years, R/o H.No.413, Singhatwara,
Zawar Mines, Udaipur (Raj.)- 313901.
9. Dr. Komal Chandel D/o Shri Lalchand Chandel, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o 247/30, Shiv Colony, Bai Ji Ki
Kothi, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Raj.) – 302004.
10. Dr. Lakshmi Yadav D/o Shri Jai Prakash Yadav, Aged
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (10 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
About 25 Years, R/o Majari Khurd, Tehsil Neemrana,
District Alwar (Raj.) – 301703.
11. Dr. Nikita D/o Shri Pritam Singh, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Jejusar, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)- 333707.
12. Dr. Dashrath Khemada S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Harsolao, Tehsil Merat City,
District Nagaur (Raj.)- 331022.
13. Dr. Pushpendra Nanoma S/o Shri Manohar Lal
Nanoma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Talaiya, Tehsil
Bicchhiwara, District Dungarpur (Raj.)- 314801.
14. Dr. Avinash Atal S/o Shri Daya Ram Atal, Aged About
27 Years, R/o F-17, Ambedkar Nagar, Alwar (Raj.)-
301001.
15. Dr. Ankit Sharma S/o Shri Gopal Lal Sharma, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Behind Dr. Gotwal House, Amba
Colony, Kuchaman City (Raj.)
16. Dr. Shweta Sharma D/o Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma,
Aged About 26 Years, R/o Shree Govind Nagar, Nadi
Ka Phatak, Murlipura, Jaipur (Raj.) 302039.
17. Dr. Priyanka Pahadiya D/o Shri Ram Pratap Pahadiya,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o 21-A, Chandra Nagar Gujar
Ghati Amer Road, Jaipur (Raj.)- 302002.
18. Dr. Saurabh Sharma S/o Shri Hari Om Sharma, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Bank Of Baroda Street, Shanti
Kunj Colony, Aklera, Jhalawar (Raj.)- 346033.
19. Dr. Hemant Kumar Fagana S/o Shri Mahesh Chand,
Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ajabpura, Tehsil Thanagaji,
Alwar (Raj.)- 301024.
20. Dr. Meenu Todwal D/o Shri Narendra Kumar Todwal,
Aged About 26 Years, R/o P.No. 155, Arjun Nagar,
Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.) – 302018.
21. Dr. Karan Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Darshan Singh
Gurjar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o V and P Paota,
Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa (Raj.)- 321612.
22. Dr. Mayank Sharma S/o Shri Vishwanath Sharma,
Aged About 26 Years, R/o Gokul Bhawan, Santar
Road, Dholpur (Raj.)- 328001.
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (11 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
23. Dr. Mriganka Karwa D/o Shri Ram Gopal Karwa, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Village Karwo Ka Bas, Tehsil
Mozamabad, District Dudu (Raj.) – 303604.
24. Dr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Rajesh Kumar
Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Near Khandelwal
Dharmshala, Bada Bazar, Baswa, Dausa (Raj.) –
303327.
25. Dr. Akshita Malav D/o Shri Raghunandan Malav, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o 19, Aanand Vihar, Ward No.02,
Adarsh Nagar, Kota Road, Baran (Raj.)-325205.
26. Dr. Koshal Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ganga Sahay
Meena, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Mohanpura,
Post Chudiyawas, Tehsil Nangal, District Dausa (Raj.)-
303505.
27. Dr. Mamta Gurjar D/o Shri Ramesh Chand Gurjar,
Aged About 25 Years, R/o Pichani, Kotputli, Jaipur
(Raj.)
28. Dr. Karan Singh Bairwa S/o Shri Ramswroop Bairwa,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Aniyala, Post
Malarna Chour, Tehsil Malarna Dungar, District Sawai
Madhopur (Raj.) – 322030.
29. Dr. Nikki Choudhary D/o Shri Sahi Ram Beniwal, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Village Pura Ki Dhani, Post
Derwala, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)-333001.
30. Dr. Chandra Kanwar Chawara D/o Shri Lal Singh
Chawara, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Gyan Sadan,
Near Shri Ram Mandir, Old Industrial Area, Rani
Bazar, District Bikaner (Raj.)- 334001.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through the Secretary,
Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer through
its Secretary.
3. Veterinary Council of India, A-Wing, 2 nd Floor, August
Kranti Bhawan, Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi,
through its Secretary.
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (12 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
4. Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal
Sciences (Rajuvas), Vijay Bhawan, Near Pandit
Deendayal Upadhyay Circle, Bikaner, through its
Registrar.
5. Post Gradeuate Institute Of Veterinary Education And
Research (Pgiver), NH-11, Agra Road, Jamdoli, Jaipur,
through its Dean and Chairman.
—-Respondents
(9) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18538/2023
1. Dr. Jayesh Dhoral S/o Shri Ridmal Ram, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Karola, Tehsil Sanchore, District
Sanchore (Raj.).
2. Dr. Bhavna Bhardwaj D/o Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Punjabi Mohalla, New Road,
Deeg, Bharatpur (Raj.).
3. Dr. Sunita Kanwar D/o Shri Anop Singh Rathore, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Pabusar, Tehsil Ratangarh,
District Churu (Raj.).
4. Dr. Tarachand Khatik S/o Shri Ramswaroop Khatik,
Aged About 26 Years, R/o VPO Borada, Sarwar,
District Ajmer (Raj.).
5. Dr. Shailendra Singh Bansiwal S/o Shri Bhoor Singh,
Aged About 30 Years, R/o Milkipura, Dhindhora,
Suroth, District Karauli (Raj.).
6. Dr. Gajendra Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Dharm Singh,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o Neotha, Tehsil Nadbai,
District Bharatpur (Raj.).
7. Dr. Gourav Sisodiya S/o Shri Devnarayan Sisodiya,
Aged About 26 Years, R/o Jhuntha, Raipur, Pali (Raj.).
8. Dr. Vikas Meena S/o Shri Mohan Lal Meena, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o Village Banjariya, Tehsil And Post
Kherwara, Udaipur (Raj.).
9. Dr. Vimla Choudhary D/o Shri Ramlal Choudhary,
Aged About 26 Years, R/o Genaniyon Ka Tala, Khume
Ki Beri, Dudu Dorimanna (Raj.).
10. Dr. Madhu Meena D/o Shri Tejram Meena, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Katkad, Hindaun City, Karauli (Raj.).
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (13 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
11. Dr. Manak Ram S/o Shri Bhundaram, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Meghwalo Ka Bas, Bilawas, Sojat City,
District Pali (Raj.).
12. Dr. Ramesh Verma S/o Shri Sitaram Verma, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o C-17, Dadhichi Nagar, Road No.
5, VKI, Jaipur (Raj.).
13. Dr. Priyanka Masar D/o Shri Jeetmal Masar, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o V and P Panasichooti, Tehsil
Garhi, District Banswara (Raj.).
14. Dr. Ritika Vyas D/o Shri Satish Prakash Sharma, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o 01, Shastri Nagar, Chittorgarh
(Raj.).
15. Dr. Aakansha Mathur D/o Shri Dharmendra Kumar
Mathur, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 48, Vishwakarma
Nagar, 80 Feet Link Road, Near Bajrang Nagar, Kota
(Raj.).
16. Dr. Suryaprakash Chouhan S/o Shri Baldev Raj
Chouhan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ganesh Chowk,
Sojat City, Pali (Raj.).
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, through the Secretary,
Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, through
its Secretary.
3. Veterinary Council of India, A-Wing, 2 nd Floor, August
Kranti Bhawan, Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi,
through its Secretary.
4. Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal
Sciences (Rajuvas), Vijay Bhawan, Near Pandit
Deendayal Upadhyay Circle, Bikaner, through its
Registrar.
5. College Of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Nawania,
Vallabh Nagar, Udaipur, through its Principal.
6. Aravali Veterinary College, NH-52, Bajor, District
Sikar, through its Principal.
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (14 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
—-Respondents
(10) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18553/2023
1. Dr. Phool Kanwar D/o Shri Jamat Singh Sodha, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Near Govt. Sr. Sec. School,
Pugal, District Bikaner (Raj.)
2. Dr. Meenu Sharma D/o Shri Mool Chand Sharma,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o 68, Sundar Nagar, Opp.
Railway Station Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Dr. Pooja Gurjar D/o Shri Rajdhar Singh, Aged About
27 Years, R/o A-64, Shiv Vihar Colony, Khatipura,
Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Dr. Pooja Meena D/o Shri Ram Singh Meena, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Plot No. 86, Dev Nagar, Sanwali
Road, Sikar (Raj.)
5. Dr. Brijbhushan Tiwari S/o Shri Ramesh Chand
Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Kalyanpura,
Sapotra, District Karoli (Raj)
6. Dr. Shailja D/o Shri Ravindra Kumar Singh, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Central Colony, Road No. 9, VKI,
Jaipur (Raj.)
7. Dr. Chandra Prakash S/o Shri Ramlal, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Village Gangapura, Post Khotiya, Tehsil
Ramgarh Shekhawati, District Sikar (Raj.)
8. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ramhet Meena,
Aged About 26 Years, R/o Jawali Ka Badh, Baswa,
Dausa (Raj.)
9. Dr. Chain Singh S/o Shri Anek Singh, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Bharatpur (Raj.)
10. Dr. Tripti Bhatia D/o Shri Purushottam Bhatia, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Indra Colony, Bikaner (Raj.)
11. Dr. Savitree Sihag D/o Shri Tolaram Sihag, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o H. No. 34, Gali No. 8, Ambedkar
Colony, Old Shiv Bari Road, Bikaner (Raj.)
12. Dr. Kirtika Panwar D/o Shri Prakash Chand Panwar,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Ratangarh,
District Churu (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (15 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
13. Dr. Yatindra Singh Sengar S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh
Sengar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Sengar Sadan,
Shubh Laxmi Nagar, Gangapur City (Raj.)
14. Dr. Vishvendra Meena S/o Shri Ramavtar Meena,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o 01, Bagh Ka Pura, Wagla
Meena, Karauli (Raj.)
15. Dr. Satveer Mokharia S/o Shri Dayanand Mokharia,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o Dhayalo Ka Bas, Kari,
Nawalgarh, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
16. Dr. Saroj Katara D/o Shri Harish Chandra Katara,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o Simalwara, District
Dungarpur (Raj.)
17. Dr. Darpan Meena S/o Shri Basanti Lal, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Gatod, Sarada, Udaipur (Raj.)
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary,
Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, through
its Secretary.
3. Veterinary Council of India, A-Wing, 2 nd Floor, August
Kranti Bhawan, Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi,
through its Secretary.
4. Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal
Sciences (Rajuvas), Vijay Bhawan, Near Pandit
Deendayal Upadhyay Circle, Bikaner, through its
Registrar.
5. College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner,
through its Principal.
—-Respondents
(11) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19567/2023
Dr Sheetal Choudhary D/o Shri Ramratan Choudhary, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Village / Town 73 Brij Bawari, Lalsagar,
Ward No. 75, Jodhpur (Raj.).
—-Petitioner
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (16 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary,
Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, through
its Secretary.
3. Veterinary Council of India, A-Wing, 2nd Floor,
Augustkranti Bhawan, Bhikhaji Cama Place, New
Delhi, through its Secretary.
4. Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal
Sciences (Rajuvas), Vijay Bhawan, Near Pandit
Deendayal Upadhyay Circle, Bikaner, through its
Registrar.
5. College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Nawania,
Vallabh Nagar, Udaipur through its Principal .
—-Respondents
(12) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 180/2024
1. Dr. Kamlesh S/o Shri Narayan Ram, Aged About 29
Years, R/o 190, Nakoda Nagar, Ward No. 3, District
Jodhpur (Raj.).
2. Dr. Dileep Singh S/o Shri Hindu Singh, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village Ketukalan, Tehsil Sekhala, District
Jodhpur (Raj.).
3. Dr. Dilkushmeena S/o Shri Rambilashmeena, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Near Govt. Secondary School,
Koondla, District Baran (Raj.).
4. Dr. Mohammad Ibrahim S/o Shri Nabab Khan, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Village-Chadva Urf Jhadwa, Post-
Gagriya, Tehsil Ramsar, District-Barmer (Raj.)
5. Dr. Mahipal Singh Jaitawat S/o Shri Devi Singh, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Village-Kelwad, Tehsil Sojat,
District Pali (Raj.).
6. Dr. Vijendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Rampal Sharma,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village-Kalyanpura, Tehsil
Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.).
7. Dr. Bhawana Kanwar D/o Shri Samder Singh, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Village-Melawas, Tehsil Marwar
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (17 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
Junction, District Pali (Raj.).
8. Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Suresh Chand,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o 3-G-53, Mahaveer Nagar,
Ext. District Kota (Raj.).
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through the Secretary,
Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer through
its Secretary.
3. Veterinary Council of India, Address – Wing, 2 nd Floor,
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikhaji Cama Place, New
Delhi, through its Secretary.
4. Kamdhenu University, B-1 Wing, 4th Floor, Block 1,
Karmayogibhawan, Sector 10 A, Sector 10,
Gandhinagar, Gujarat through its Registrar.
5. Nanaji Deshmukh Veterinary Science University, Near
Empire Square, South Civil Lines, Jabalpur, Madhya
Pradesh through its Registrar.
—-Respondents
(13) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 678/2024
1. Dr. Rohit Sankhala S/o Shri Chinna Ram Sankhla,
Aged About 34 Years, R/o Plot No 123, Shanti Priya
Nagar Extension, Near Thar Dry Port, District Jodhpur
(Raj.).
2. Dr. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Purakh Singh, Aged About
30 Years, R/o VPO Kaludi, Tehsil Pachpadra, District
Barmer (Raj.).
3. Dr. Dalu Ram Meena S/o Shri Bhori Lal Meena, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Village Birajpura, Post
Todabhata, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.).
4. Sunita Rolania D/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Ward No. 14, Gidawala, Shrimadhopur,
District Sikar (Raj.).
—-Petitioners
Versus
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (18 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary,
Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer through
its Secretary.
3. Veterinary Council of India, A-Wing, 2 nd Floor, August
Kranti Bhawan Cama Place, New Delhi, through its
Secretary.
4. Kamdhenu University, B-1 Wing, 4th Floor, Block 1,
Karmyogi Bhawan, Sector 10 A, Sector 10,
Gandhinagar, Gujarat through its Registrar.
5. Nanaji Deshmukh Veterinary Science University, Near
Empire Square, South Civil Lines, Jabalpur, Madhya
Pradesh through its Registrar.
—-Respondents
(14) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 750/2024
1. Dr. Bharat Bandhu S/o Shri Deva Ram Meghwal, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o VPO Manora, Via Jawal, District
Sirohi (Raj.).
2. Dr. Subhash Chander S/o Shri Chunni Lal, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Ward No. 19, Near Bus Stand,
Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar (Raj.).
3. Dr. Mamta Laxmi D/o Shri Mahender Kumar, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o 10/42 Mukta Prasad Colony,
Bikaner (Raj.).
4. Dr. Rameshwar Meena S/o Shri Brij Mohan Meena,
Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village – Kankarda, Po
Sarola Kalan, Tehsil Khanpur, District Jhalawar (Raj.).
5. Dr. Nisha Yadav D/o Shri Sube Singh Yadav, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o H.No. 1285, Village Saga,
Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
6. Dr. Deepak Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Radhe Shyam
Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Kushal-Pura,
Bansa, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.).
7. Dr. Kavita Kumari D/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About
31 Years, R/o Birol, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (19 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
8. Dr. Sundar Lal Maurya S/o Shri Kalu Ram Maurya,
Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village – Papra Kalan, Tehsil
Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
9. Dr. Gaurav Bhardwaj S/o Shri Rajesh Bharadwa, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o 31/32, Balaji Vihar, Chawand Ki
Mand, Ramgarh Road, Saipura, Jaipur (Raj.).
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary,
Department of Animal Husbandry, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer through
its Secretary.
3. Veterinary Council of India, A-Wing, 2 nd Floor, August
Kranti Bhawan, Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi,
through its Secretary.
4. Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal
Sciences (Rajuvas), Vijay Bhawan, Near Pandit
Deendayal Upadhyay Circle, Bikaner, through its
Registrar.
—-Respondents
(15) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2193/2024
Dr Mohit Dayma S/o Shri Mohan Lal Dayma, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Plot No 02 Krishna Vihar C Mangyawas Road
Rajat Path Mansarovar Jaipur Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through the Secretary,
Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, through
its Secretary.
3. Veterinary Council Of India, Add – A-Wing, 2 nd Floor,
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikhaji Cama Place, New
Delhi, through its Secretary.
4. Bihar Animal Sciences University, Bihar Veterinary
College, Patna, Bihar.
—-Respondents
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (20 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
(16) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5816/2024
Mukesh Rajpurohit S/o Shri Pukh Raj Singh Rajpurohit,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village And Post-Kaludi, Tehsil
Pachpadara, District Barmer (Ra.).- 344 022.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary,
Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer through
its Secretary.
3. Veterinary Council of India, Add A-Wing, 2nd Floor,
Augustkranti Bhawan, Bhikhaji Cama Place, New
Delhi, through its Secretary.
4. Anand Agricultural University, Anand- 388110,
Gujarat, India-through its Registrar.
—-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Hanuman Singh
Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Advocate through
V.C. assisted by
Mr. Utkarsh Dubey through V.C.
Mr. Sandeep Shah, Sr. Advocate
assisted by
Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Rathore
Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, through V.C.
Mr. S.P. Sharma
Mr. Bhavit Sharma
Mr. Shovit Jhajharia, through V.C.
Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma, through
V.C.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate
General through V.C. assisted by
Mr. Anirudh Singh Shekhawat
Mr. Yuvraj Samant, through VC
Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG
Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG through VC
Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora, through VC
Mr. Akhil Simlote, through VC
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (21 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
Mr. Arvind Kumar Yadav, through VC
Mr. Deepak Bishnoi, through VC
Ms. Neha Amola, through VC
Mr. Mahesh Thanvi
Mr. Pramendra Bohra
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
Reserved on : 04/12/2024
REPORTABLE Pronounced on : 09/01/2025
1. The question involved in writ petitions is common and
therefore, they are being disposed of conjointly.
2. The petitioners of the writ petitions enlisted in Group ‘A’
(Serial Nos.1 to 5) have approached this Court with the grievance
that while issuing list of selected candidates, the respondent –
Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Commission’) has wrongly included those candidates, who
have simply got themselves enrolled in the Final Year of the
academic course, while the petitioners of writ petitions of Group
‘B’ (Serial Nos.6 to 16) have preferred the writ petitions under the
apprehension or that the Commission would reject their
candidature and in some cases challenging their non-inclusion in
the select list notwithstanding the fact that they had cleared the
Final Year Examination on the date of interview and they fulfill the
eligibility criterion mentioned in the Advertisement.
3. The basic question, which requires determination is; as to
whether a candidate, who has got himself enrolled in the Final
Year of the Bachelor’s Degree in Veterinary Science and Animal
Husbandry (hereinafter referred to as ‘B.V.Sc.’) is eligible or he
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (22 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
should necessarily have appeared or is appearing in the Final Year
Examination of B.V.Sc. Course at the time of submitting
application form. In other words, “what is the eligibility criterion
for a candidate to apply for the recruitment to the post of
Veterinary Officer”?
4. The facts pertinent for the present purposes are that the
respondent – Commission issued an advertisement dated
22.10.2019 seeking to fill up 900 post of Veterinary Officers.
According to the terms of the advertisement, the requisite
educational qualification was as under:-
“kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk%&
(1) Bachelor’s Degree in Veterinary Science and Animal
Husbandry or its equivalent from a recognized
University.
(2) Working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri
Script and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture.
uksV%& 1- vH;FkhZ dks jktLFkku jkT; i”kq fpfdRlk ifj’kn~ esa jftLVMZ gksuk pkfg, rFkk
foLr`r vkosnu i=@lk{kkRdkj ds le; iath;u izek.k i= izLrqr djuk vko”;d gSA
2- vH;FkhZ dks lk{kkRdkj esa lfEefyr gksus dh fnukad rd bUVuZf”ki Vªsfuax iw.kZ djuk
vko”;d gSA
“kS{kf.kd vgZrk mDr in dh visf{kr “kS{kf.kd vgZrk ds vafre o’kZ esa lfEefyr
laca/kh izko/kku gqvk gks ;k lfEefyr gksus okyk O;fDr Hkh vkosnu djus ds
fy, ik= gksxk] fdUrq mls vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr lk{kkRdkj ls
iwoZ “kS{kf.kd vgZrk vftZr djus dk lcwr nsuk gksxk] vU;Fkk
og vik= gksxkA
uksV%& lk{kkRdkj ls iwoZ vfHkO;fDr dk vk”k; lk{kkRdkj dh
izfØ;k izkjaHk gksus dh fnukad ¼lk{kkRdkj dk igyk fnu½ gSA
5. The advertisement aforesaid was issued under the Rajasthan
Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Rules of 1963’) and it clearly stipulated that the candidates
must carefully read the conditions mentioned in the advertisement
so also the Rules of 1963.
6. Rule 11 of the Rules of 1963 prescribes academic and
technical qualifications as under:-
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (23 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
“11. Academic and Technical Qualifications:- A
candidate for direct recruitment to the post specified
in the Schedule shall possess (1) the qualifications
given in Column 4 of the Schedule, and(2) Working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri
Script and knowledge of Rajasthani culture.
Provided that the person who has appeared or is
appearing in the final year examination of the course
which is the requisite educational qualification for the
post as mentioned in the rules or schedule for direct
recruitment, shall be eligible to apply for the post but
he/she shall have to submit proof of having acquired
the requisite educational qualification to the
appropriate selection agency:-
(i) before appearing in the main examination, where
selection is made through two stages of written
examination and interview;
(ii) before appearing in interview where selection is
made through written examination and interview;
(iii) before appearing in the written examination or
interview where selection is made through only
written examination or only interview, as the case
may be.”
7. The petitioners mentioned in Group ‘A’ have preferred the
writ petitions contending inter-alia that the respondents have
wrongly included those candidates in the select list, who had
simply got themselves enrolled in the Fifth Year (Final Year) of the
B.V.Sc. Course ignoring the fact that they had not appeared in
such examination when they submitted their application forms.
Preliminary Objections and petitioners’ Response:
8. Two preliminary objections were raised by the respondents
led by Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Advocate General for the
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (24 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
State and Mr. Yuvraj Samant appearing for the respondent –
Commission claiming that the writ petitions of Group ‘A’ suffer
from delay and laches. It was also argued that having appeared in
the selection process, the petitioners’ challenge to the terms of
the advertisement is impermissible rather barred by acquiescence.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
advertisement was issued on 22.10.2019 containing a note,
according to which, all the candidates who have got admission in
the Final Year of the B.V.Sc. would be held eligible to apply for the
recruitment to the post and argued that if the petitioners had any
objection qua their inclusion or qua such note, they ought to have
raised the grievance immediately on issuance of the
advertisement. They argued that the writ petitions (Group ‘A’)
which have been filed in the year 2024, after the appointments
being granted, are highly belated.
10. Learned Advocate General relied upon following judgments:
(a) Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. vs. The State of Jammu &
Kashmir & Ors., reported in AIR 2023 SC 2014 (Para 12)
(b) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar
Srivastava, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 (on the issue of
delay and laches).
11. Mr. Samant also relied upon the judgment in the case of
Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra).
12. Mr. Arvind Kumar learned counsel for the private
respondents placed reliance upon the case of Ramjit Singh
Kardam & Ors. vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors., reported in AIR
2020 (SC) 2060.
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (25 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
13. Responding to preliminary objections so raised, Mr. Vikas
Balia, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Tanveer Ahamad learned
counsel for the petitioners (Group ‘A’) contended that the petitions
do not suffer from delay and laches inasmuch as until the result
was declared, no cause of action had accrued to the petitioners.
They submitted that the final result or list of candidates to be
appointed was issued on 26.05.2024 and it was only at such point,
that the petitioners came to know that many a candidates have
been offered appointment, who did not possess academic and
technical qualifications at the time of submitting application forms
as prescribed in Rule 11 of the Rules of 1963. He argued that the
writ petitions cannot be alleged to be belated.
14. While maintaining that even as per the condition of the
advertisement, only those candidates could be considered eligible,
who had appeared or were appearing in the Final Year
Examination, learned counsel submitted that since the
advertisement clearly made a mention of the Rules of 1963, the
petitioners were under bona-fide belief that the candidature of
ineligible candidates would be rejected and thus, kept waiting for
the final select list.
15. Responding to the preliminary objections, Mr. Balia, learned
Senior Counsel pointed out that the subject advertisement dated
22.10.2019 made a reference of detailed information and required
a candidate to go through the relevant rules and contended that
the petitioners were bona-fidely waiting for the final decision of
the Commission, hence, they cannot be non-suited on the ground
of delay.
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (26 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
16. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following
judgments:-
Group ‘A’
(i) Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. vs. U.P. Public Service
Commission, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 507 (Para 21
and 24).
(ii) Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India & Ors.,
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 54 – Para 40
(iii) Rakesh Bakshi & Anr. vs. State of Jammu &
Kashmir & Ors., reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 662.
17. Countering the respondents’ argument of delay (of four
years), learned counsel for the petitioners argued that when first
list was issued (list of candidates who were called for interview),
the petitioners were thinking that all such ineligible candidates
would be excluded at the time of document verification. He argued
that until the screening of the document or the examination of
petitioners’ educational qualifications or eligibility is undertaken,
the petitioners had no cause of action.
18. Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners in Writ Petition No. 14022/2024 (Virendra Singh & Ors.
vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) registered at Jaipur Bench echoed
the same submission by different articulation that the cause of
action had not accrued simply upon issuance of the
advertisement; the same as a matter of fact accrued when the
petitioners came to know that ineligible candidates have been
selected.
19. He submitted that though the result of screening test was
declared on 26.11.2020, but the documents were examined after
the interview process and therefore, they were bona-fidely waiting
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (27 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
for the final decision of the Commission. And immediately when
the final select list was issued in the year 2024, the petitioners
have preferred the writ petitions challenging the action of the
respondent – Commission, which has apparently included
ineligible candidates in such list.
20. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners could not
conceive that the Commission would not follow the clear language
of the Rules of 1963 and would depart from the stand, which it
had taken, while contesting the writ petitions which were
preferred in previous recruitments of 2011 & 2013 in the case of
Rameshwar Prasad Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan &
Anr, (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3659/2016) and other cases
decided by Jaipur Bench on 25.07.2016 and Manoj Kumar &
Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 3271/2016) decided on 16.08.2016 affirmed by Division
Bench vide judgment dated 25.08.2017 passed in the case of
Manoj Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B.
Special Appeal (Writ) No. 858/2016 at Jodhpur.
21. Argument of learned Advocate General that the petitioners
have acquiesced by taking part in the recruitment process was
addressed by Mr. Balia, learned Senior Counsel by submitting that
the condition of the advertisement has not been challenged on the
ground of it being arbitrary or partisan and the same has been
challenged for being contrary to the Rules of 1963 and therefore,
such challenge is not hit by the principle of acquiescence. He
added that the basic challenge is of the illegal inclusion of the
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (28 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
candidates in the select list and the challenge to the condition of
advertisement is incidental and an alternative/corollary argument.
22. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner of one of the
similar writ petitions, pointed out that some of the eligible
candidates had filed writ petitions being S.B. Civil Writ Petition
Nos. 16900/2019 and 13185/2020 apprehending that the
respondent – Commission would wrongly include the candidates,
who had not appeared in the Final Year Examination on the date of
issuance of the advertisement and argued that the objections of
delay and laches so also of acquiescence raised by the learned
Advocate General and the respondent – Commission would not be
applicable to those cases, as those writ petitions had been filed by
the petitioners at the very first instance in the year 2020 itself.
23. While pointing out that the selections have been made
subject to those writ petitions, learned counsel argued that if his
writ petitions are heard on merit, obviously the preliminary
objections of delay and laches and acquiescence would not come
in the way and prayed that all the matters be decided on their
merit rather than rejecting them on the basis of preliminary
objections, which are otherwise untenable in law.
24. Detailed arguments were advanced by rival counsel on the
preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the writ
petitions, which were heard on 27.11.2024. But, the Court was,
however, of the view that the issues cannot be decided in
piecemeal and thus asked rival counsel to make submissions on
merit of the case as well, so that a composite judgment can be
delivered. However, due to time constraints, the matters were
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (29 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
adjourned to 04.12.2024, when detailed arguments on merit of
the case were heard.
Contentions on merit by the petitioners (Group ‘A’):-
25. Mr. Balia, learned Senior Counsel navigated the Court
through the relevant conditions of the advertisement and
underscored that the recruitment process was to take place in two
phases – first, Screening Test and then Interview; and according
to the terms of the advertisement 40 marks were earmarked for
written test (40% weightage of the marks obtained in screening
test); 20 marks were allocated for academic qualification and 40
marks were for the interview and accordingly merit list out of 100
marks was to be prepared.
26. He submitted that the last date of submitting application
form was 24.11.2019; Screening Test was held on 02.08.2020; its
result was declared on 26.11.2020; while interviews were
conducted on 29.09.2023 and documents verification took place
thereafter. He asserted that the petitioners (of Group ‘A’) came to
know only in March, 2024 that ineligible candidates were not
ousted from the selection process and all those candidates who
could satisfy the Commission that they had cleared the Third Year
Examination of B.V.Sc. and had got admission in Fourth (Final)
Year of the Course have been held eligible and included in the list
of selected candidates.
27. Learned Senior Counsel informed that prior to 2015, the
Bachelor’s Degree in Veterinary Science used to comprise of 5
years academic qualification followed by 6 months’ internship,
whereas after 2015, the pattern has changed and now it is 4 years
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (30 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
of academic qualification followed by one and a half year of
internship. Learned counsel submitted that the eligibility of all
those candidates, who have got admission in the year 2015 is
questionable, because the advertisement was issued on
22.10.2019.
28. He contended that at the best, such candidates had cleared
Third Year Examination of the academic course and got admission
in Fourth Year. He added that Third Year Examinations of
University were held somewhere in September, 2019 and the
result (Third Year Examination) was declared in October-
November of 2019 and therefore, the candidates who got
admitted in the B.V.Sc. in the year 2015, by no stretch of
imagination can claim that they had appeared in Final Year
Examination, on the relevant date 24.11.2019 being the last date
of submitting application forms. He argued that getting admission
in Final Year is not enough to acquire eligibility to apply for the
recruitment in question.
29. Inviting Court’s attention towards proviso to Rule 11 of the
Rules of 1963, learned counsel emphasized that the same in
unequivocal terms uses expression ‘has appeared in Final Year
Examination or is appearing in the Examination’ and contended
that the respondent – Commission has distorted the clear
language of the proviso while inserting a poorly worded condition
in the advertisement. A condition, which was intended to convey
what is contained in proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules of 1963, due
to omission or inadvertence, has been so drafted that the
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (31 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
expression used, gives an impression that a candidate who has
got admission in the Final Year Examination shall also be eligible.
30. Mr. Balia, firstly stressed over the expression ‘Final Year
Examination’ and then argued that even if the advertisement gives
an impression that a candidate who has got admission in Final
Year of the B.V.Sc. is eligible to apply, the same cannot be given
any credence, because the note in question is in teeth of the
express provision contained in proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules of
1963.
31. Learned Senior Counsel emphasized that when the relevant
Rule uses the expression ‘appeared or appearing in Final Year
Examination’, the eligibility to apply for the post has to be
‘examination’. Any error or omission of the Commission while
framing conditions of the advertisement cannot overtake or
override the statutory provisions.
32. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the judgment of
Jaipur Bench rendered on 25.07.2016 in the case of Rameshwar
Prasad Choudhary (supra) so also observations made by the same
Bench while deciding the review petition (S.B. Writ Review
Petition No. 127/2016 : Girraj Prasad Sharma & Ors. vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.) on 20.01.2017 had left no room for
ambiguity.
33. He asserted that the Commission in the previous
recruitments for the very post (Veterinary Officer) initiated vide
advertisements dated 08.03.2011 and 02.05.2013 took a
categorical stand that only those candidates are eligible, who have
appeared in Final Year Examination and not those who would be
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (32 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
appearing. He argued that when such stand of the Commission
has been approved by the Jaipur Bench while deciding the case of
Rameshwar Prasad Choudhary (supra), there was no justification
with the Commission to take the plea that the candidates, who
have got admission in Final Year are also eligible to apply.
34. He argued that apart from the judgments aforesaid, the
respondent – Commission is bound by its own stand. He wondered
as to how can the Commission take two different stands in two
recruitments for the very same post in exactly identical facts and
squarely similar statutory position.
35. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that not only the Jaipur
Bench in the case of Rameshwar Prasad Choudhary (supra), even
a co-ordinate Bench at Jodhpur vide its judgment dated
16.08.2016 in the case of Manoj Kumar (supra) has taken the
same view, and such view has been affirmed by the Division
Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 858/2016 decided on
25.08.2017.
36. After reading the operative part of all the three judgments,
learned Senior Counsel went on to comment in bewilderment –
how can the Commission dare to take a stand and an
interpretation, which is contrary to its own stand which was
previously taken and which is in direct conflict with the
adjudication made by this Court, in which it was a party!
37. The Court’s attention was drawn towards the representation
dated 27.09.2023 furnished by one of the petitioners in a bid to
contend that a grievance was raised that those candidates have
been included in the process of interview, who have cleared Final
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (33 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
Year Examination in the year 2020 and that inclusion of such
candidates was not legal in light of judgment given by the High
Court at Jaipur and Jodhpur.
38. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that despite such
representation, the Commission had issued letters dated
29.09.2023 and asked the candidates to furnish proof of
admission in the Final Year. He argued that the stand of the
Commission that all those candidates who have got admission in
the Final Year by the date of advertisement i.e. 22.10.2019 is
eligible to apply, is clearly contrary to Rules and the judgments
passed by this Court.
39. He reiterated that even if the terms of the advertisement
give rise to some confusion and suggest that a candidate who has
got admission in Final Year of B.V.Sc. is eligible, such
interpretation deserves to be avoided, as the same would violate
the mandate of proviso to Rule 11 of the Rules of 1963.
Submissions of Co-counsel:
40. Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners (of
Group ‘A’ cases) submitted that the petitioners of Group ‘B’ cases
are misinterpreting the Note of the advertisement. He argued that
even as per said Note, only those candidates were eligible to
apply, who had appeared in the examinations. He argued that the
Note in question, though not happily worded, but is in conformity
with the Rules of 1963 and therefore, the writ petitions filed by
the petitioners of Group ‘A’ deserve acceptance, while the writ
petitions filed by the petitioners of Group ‘B’ merit rejection.
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (34 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
Submissions of petitioners of Group ‘B’:
41. Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners (of Group ‘B’ cases) at the outset argued that the
judgment of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar (supra)
rendered on 16.08.2016 involved different set of facts and
therefore, the observations made therein cannot be treated as a
binding precedent in the present case. He added that the same is
the position, when it comes to Jaipur Bench decision in the case of
Rameshwar Prasad Choudhary (supra).
42. For the purpose of pointing out the factual distinction, Mr.
Shah submitted that in both the cases, which relate to previous
recruitments, the advertisements were issued on 02.05.2013 and
08.03.2011 and by that time the petitioners therein had not even
cleared the Fourth Year Examination, for which, the Court held the
petitioners therein to be ineligible and while doing so, a passing
reference was made that Note No.2 (identical to the present case)
was meant to deal with the candidates who had appeared or about
to appear in Fifth Year Examination.
43. Having brought to fore the distinguishing features, learned
Senior Counsel submitted that the respondent – Commission has
taken a beneficial view in order to include more candidates,
because the recruitment for the post of Veterinary Officer had
taken place after 5-6 years and argued that if the recruiting
agency – the Commission, has adopted an inclusive approach in
order to include more candidates, this Court should refrain from
interfering, more particularly, when all the petitioners have cleared
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (35 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
the Final Year Examination by the date of interview and acquired
requisite academic qualification.
44. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that for the post of
Veterinary Officer, candidates from all parts of the country, who
have undertaken their academic qualification (B.V.Sc.) from
different colleges and Universities have applied. And since all the
Institutions have different dates for holding examinations and
submitting examination forms, the Commission has taken a
pragmatic view and relaxed the eligibility requirement for filing
application, with an object of removing difficulty and keeping
uniformity, by way of condition no.2 in the advertisement. He
submitted that such view of the Commission, which is in larger
interest of the candidates does not warrant interference, moreso
when such criteria has been uniformly applied.
45. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioners and
other similar candidates have been held eligible as per the terms
of the advertisement; they have cleared the screening test and
interview and have been selected on the basis of marks they have
obtained as per the norms set by the Commission and have even
been offered appointment. He argued that since the petitioners
have proved their merit over other candidates, the appointments
given to the candidates like the petitioners, deserve to be saved,
even if this Court finds some substance in the contention of the
petitioners of Group ‘A’ cases. He prayed that the writ petitions
filed by the petitioners of Group ‘B’ be allowed and the
respondents be directed to accord appointments to them.
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (36 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
46. In support of his prayer aforesaid, learned Senior Counsel
placed strong reliance upon what had been observed in Para No.9
of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Maharashtra Public Service Commission & Ors. vs. Sandeep
Shriram Warade & Ors., reported in (2019) 6 SCC 362 and
submitted that if there is some ambiguity in the Rules, the Court
should lean in favour of an interpretation, which is beneficial to
the candidates. The relevant part of aforesaid judgment given in
Para No.9 is reproduced hereunder:-
“9. … … … If the language of the advertisement and
the rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment
over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the
advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the
matter has to go back to the appointing authority
after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance
with law. In no case can the court, in the garb of
judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing
authority to decide what is best for the employer and
interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary
to the plain language of the same.”
47. Learned Senior Counsel further cited the judgment of
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra
Shah vs. Anil Joshi, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309 (Para 16
to 18) to contend that a candidate having consciously taken part
in the process of selection cannot turn around and question the
method of selection and its outcome.
48. Learned Senior Counsel at the end submitted that the
petitioners have not only participated in the selection process but
have proved their merit over other candidates and therefore, at
this juncture, they should not be ousted and alternatively prayed
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (37 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
that their appointment be saved and appropriate direction be
issued to the respondents to accommodate them against future
vacancies that arose after 22.10.2019, if not against the present
vacancies.
Submissions of Mr. Samant on behalf of RPSC:
49. Mr. Samant, learned counsel appearing for the respondent –
Commission submitted that since various Universities/institutions
have different dates for submitting examination forms and
examinations, in order to remove difficulty to the candidates and
with a view to ensure uniformity, the Commission had consciously
taken a decision that all those candidates who have passed Third
Year Academic Course and have got admission in the Fourth Year,
would be treated eligible to apply. He submitted that such view of
the Commission is based on purposive interpretation of Rule 11 of
the Rules of 1963, including its proviso.
50. While submitting that the contentious Note in the
advertisement has been drafted in order to expand the candidates
– base and include more candidates, learned counsel contended
that such criteria has been uniformly applied and argued that the
petitioners of Group ‘B’ and other similarly situated candidates
have not only cleared the Screening Test, but have also fared well
in the interview and therefore, whosoever was more meritorious
has found his place in the select list.
51. Mr. Samant further submitted that in any event all the
candidates whose names have been reflected in the list of
candidates recommended for appointment, have passed the Final
Year Examination on the relevant date (interview) as mandated by
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (38 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
Rule 11 of the Rules of 1963 and the terms of the advertisement.
He argued that since they have acquired requisite educational
qualification at the time of document verification, they deserve to
be held eligible.
52. It was alternatively argued by Mr. Samant that the Court
should adopt a liberal approach, when it comes to eligibility to
apply for the post; the strict view regarding eligibility should no
doubt be adopted when it comes to the eligibility or educational
qualification at the time of being finally selected.
53. On Court’s query that why the Commission has changed his
stand in the present recruitment, when the Commission’s stand
earlier was that the candidates who have appeared in the Final
Year Examination or are appearing in such examinations alone are
eligible to apply; Mr. Samant had no response/comment to offer.
Submissions of Mr. Thanvi on behalf of RPSC:
54. Mr. Mahesh Thanvi, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent – Commission in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
17934/2023 brought to fore the fact that as per the information
provided by the Veterinary University, the result of the Fourth Year
Examination was declared on 16.11.2019, whereas the last date of
submitting application form was 24.11.2019 and argued that none
of the petitioners of Group ‘B’ can claim eligibility to apply,
because they had not even got admission in the Final Year Course
by 24.11.2019, what to talk of Final Year Examinations.
Rejoinder submissions:
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (39 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
55. Mr. Balia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners (Group A) in rejoinder submitted that Rule 11 of the
Rules of 1963 is clear and open to no two interpretations
inasmuch as, it uses the expression “Final Year Examination”. He
accepted that a candidate who had filled in the examination form
for the Final Year apart from the one who had appeared in such
examination on the date of Advertisement i.e. 22.10.2019, may
be considered eligible to apply, even if he had not completed
his/her internship. But unless a candidate had filled in examination
form for the Final Year Examination upto the last date of
submitting application form, he cannot be held eligible to apply
pursuant to the recruitment Notification dated 22.10.2019.
56. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that what has been held
in the judgments in cases of Manoj Kumar (supra), Rameshwar
Prasad Choudhary (supra) and Division Bench judgment in the
case of Manoj Kumar (supra) dated 25.08.2017, cannot be said to
be an obiter, more particularly, when the Rules in question were
the very same Rules which have been interpreted by the Court. He
submitted that small distinction in facts cannot change the legal
position, which has been set at rest by this Court.
57. It was argued that it was the faulty drafting of the condition
and not of the advertisement, which has led to confusion,
otherwise the stand of the Commission has always been that the
candidates who have appeared or are appearing in the Final Year
Examination alone can contest for the post, as can be discerned
from the argument that was advanced by the Commission in the
above referred cases.
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (40 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
58. He vehemently argued that but for the proviso to Rule 11 of
the Rules of 1963 or the Note appended to the advertisement, a
candidate who has not completed the graduation in B.V.Sc. could
not even fill in the application form. And the proviso has been
inserted only with a view to provide benefit to those candidates,
who have completed their studies of Final Year and were about to
appear or had appeared in the examination and whose result is
awaited. He argued that such leeway provided to the candidates
cannot be stretched to the extent to which the petitioners of
Group ‘B’ are attempting to.
59. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
and the relevant law.
Discussion & Findings
(a) Preliminary Objections:-
60. The respondent – Commission and the State have raised
preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the writ
petitions filed by the petitioners of Group ‘A’ cases primarily on the
ground of delay and laches and acquiescence.
61. It is to be borne in mind that the advertisement was issued
on 22.10.2019, with a clause relating to eligibility/academic
qualification, wherein the expression ‘ ijh{kk’ (examination) is
conspicuously missing. In normal circumstances, the State can
justifiably contend that if the petitioners (of Group ‘A’) had any
concern about such clause, they ought to have challenged the
same by preferring writ petition immediately on the issuance of
the advertisement.
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (41 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
62. Indisputably, a condition with similar stipulation had been
appended by the Commission in its earlier Advertisements dated
08.03.2011 and 02.05.2013 and dealing with such clause, co-
ordinate Benches of this Court at Jaipur so also at Jodhpur and
even Division Bench had held that only those candidates were
eligible to apply who had appeared or had been appearing in the
Final Year Examination.
63. It is intriguing that the stand of the Commission in the
previous recruitments had been in line with the provisions of Rule
11 of the Rules of 1963. As such, the petitioners’ plea that they
bona-fidely remained under the belief that the respondent –
Commission would follow the mandate of Rule 11 of the Rules of
1963 and exclude all those candidates who were ineligible as per
enunciation made by this Court in the cases of Rameshwar Prasad
Choudhary (supra) and Manoj Kumar (supra) cannot be said to be
ill founded.
64. The cause of action, as a matter of fact, has accrued to the
petitioners only when the respondent – Commission has issued
select list and included the candidates who did not appear in the
Final Year Examination on 24.11.2019, being the last date of
submitting application forms. Since the cause of action has
accrued to the petitioners on the issuance of select list, the
preliminary objection raised by the respondents that the writ
petitions suffer from delay and laches is untenable and liable to be
repelled. The same is, therefore, rejected.
65. The judgment in the case of Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra) and
Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra) cited by learned Advocate
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (42 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
General and Mr. Samant on delay and laches are clearly
distinguishable.
66. Another contention that has been zealously put forth by
learned Advocate General that the petitioners having appeared in
the selection process cannot challenge the terms of the
advertisement on the principle of acquiescence is equally feeble.
As a matter of fact, the petitioners’ challenge cannot be said to be
a challenge to the contentious Note regarding the academic
qualification appended in the advertisement; the challenge in
essence is to the action of the Commission which has
misconstrued the Note after having mis-spelt it.
67. Even if it is said to be a case of challenging the terms of the
advertisement, the principle laid down by this Court and by
Hon’ble the Supreme Court that a candidate having taken part in
the selection process cannot challenge the terms thereof, cannot
take away the petitioners’ right to challenge, as said principle is
applicable in the cases, where the petitioners assail the condition
of the advertisement which hinders or impedes their way of
getting selected or recruited.
68. As a matter of fact, the petitioners (Group ‘A’) have
challenged inclusion of the candidates/petitioners of Group ‘B’
based on incorrect interpretation of the condition, due to which
the candidates, who according to plain reading of Rule 11 are
ineligible have been treated eligible and in such process, the
challenge to the condition has also been raised. As the petitioners
(Group ‘A’) have not called in question any condition obstructing
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (43 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
their way of getting selected, the principle of acquiescence is
inapplicable to their cases.
69. In the case of Ramjit Singh Kardam (supra), Hon’ble the
Supreme Court has observed that once a candidate takes a
calculated chance and appears at interview, then only because
result of interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn around
and subsequently contend that process of interview by selection
committee was unfair. The facts of the preset case (Writ Petitions
of Group ‘A’) are clearly distinguishable from the case of Ramjit
Singh Kardam (supra).
70. The petitioners (Group ‘A’) cannot be said to have accepted
the condition and ventured to challenge the same subsequently.
Principle of acquiescence means acceptance of a condition and
then, having failed to get through, accusing such condition. As
against this, the petitioners have challenged the improperly, rather
wrongly worded condition, due to which the ineligible candidates
have sailed through and got selected, dehors the clear provisions
of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1963.
71. This Court hardly finds any substance in the preliminary
objection raised by the respondents. The petitioners (Group ‘A’),
therefore, cannot be non-suited on the ground of delay and
laches. That apart, when a writ petition of like relief has already
been filed by a candidate before this Court (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 13185/2020 titled as Ramakant Soni vs. Rajasthan Public
Service Commission, Ajmer & Ors.) in the year 2020 itself and the
same is pending, dismissal of writ petitions (Group ‘A’) filed in the
year 2024 would be of little avail to the respondents.
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (44 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
72. If the text of Rule 11 with its first proviso is taken into
account, it is unequivocally clear that only those candidates who
have appeared or are appearing in the Final Year Examination of
the B.V.Sc. are eligible to vie for the post of Veterinary Officer. But
the question, which crops up is; which is the stage at which a
candidate can be said to be appearing in the examination?
73. So far as the expression ‘candidates who have appeared’ is
concerned, there cannot be a quarrel – such candidates can
furnish a proof of submitting time-table/admit card of the Final
Year Examination and it can be easily determined. But, a difficulty
may arise qua the expression “appearing in Final Year Examination
of the Course”. According to this Court, a candidate can be said to
be appearing in the concerned examination once he has submitted
examination form and deposited the requisite examination fee.
Prior to such stage, a candidate even if he/she has got admission
in the Final Year of the course and is pursuing the course, cannot
claim that he/she is appearing in the Final Year Examination.
74. Both literal and purposive interpretation of the Rule would
mean and include only those candidates, who as a matter of fact,
have appeared in the Final Year Examination or the candidates
who have filled-in their examination form and deposited the
requisite fee for Final Year Examination.
75. It is, therefore, clear that going by the Rules, the
Commission is supposed to ask the candidates to furnish proof of
date of submitting their examination form/examination fee of Final
Year Examination and copy of admit card, so as to ascertain that
on the last date of submitting application form whether the
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (45 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
candidate had already appeared in the Final Year Examination or
was appearing in the Final Year Examination or not. If a candidate
is unable to furnish such proof, he/she can be safely held ineligible
to apply for the post.
76. The subject Note reads thus:-
“mDr in dh visf{kr “kS{kf.kd vgZrk ds vafre o’kZ esa lfEefyr gqvk
gks ;k lfEefyr gksus okyk O;fDr Hkh vkosnu djus ds fy, ik= gksxk]
fdUrq mls vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr lk{kkRdkj ls iwoZ “kS{kf.kd vgZrk vftZr
djus dk lcwr nsuk gksxk] vU;Fkk og vik= gksxkAuksV%& lk{kkRdkj ls iwoZ vfHkO;fDr dk vk”k; lk{kkRdkj dh izfØ;k izkjaHk
gksus dh fnukad ¼lk{kkRdkj dk igyk fnu½ gSA”
If the offending Note is read in its entirety, it is apparent that
the expression ‘dh ijh{kk’, between the expression ‘vafre o’kZ’ and ‘esa
lfEefyr’ is missing due to inadvertence or error of draftsman, while
preparing terms of the advertisement.
77. If read carefully, it is apparent that it is not meant for
candidates who have taken admission in the Final Year, else the
use of expression ‘lfEEfyr gqvk gks ;k lfEefyr gksus okyk ‘ becomes otiose
or redundant. Though not permissible as per the provision of Rule
11, even if the intention of the Commission was to include all
those candidates who had taken admission in the Final Year, then
the simple expression “vafre o’kZ esa izfo’B ;k izosf”kr gks] vkosnu djus dk ik=
gksxk” would be sufficient. The expression ‘ lfEefyr gqvk gks ;k lfEefyr
gksus okyk’ is used only to corelate it with the term ‘ijh{kk or
examination’. Because such expression (lfEefyr gqvk gks ;k lfEefyr gksus
okyk) is reflective of a continuing event, whereas admission is a
one time event, for which this expression (‘lfEEfyr gqvk gks ;k lfEefyr
gksus okyk’) cannot be used.
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (46 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
78. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the Note in the
advertisement relating to academic qualification “”kS{kf.kd vgZrk” has
been defectively drafted. It is not a case of two interpretations of
the relevant provision; it is a case of oversight of the draftsman.
The draftsman’s lapse cannot be capitalized by the candidates,
who were otherwise not eligible to apply for the post, for not
having appeared in the Final Year Examination at the time of
submitting application form.
79. Leaning in favour of the petitioners of Group ‘B’ cases would
be doing disfavour to hundreds of such candidates, who did not
attempt for the post pursuant to the advertisement dated
22.10.2019, considering themselves to be ineligible, as they had
not appeared in the Final Year Examination.
80. Relevant it is to note, that the result of Fourth Year
(preceding to the Final Year) was declared on 16.11.2019, while
the last date of submitting application form was 24.11.2019.
There might be hundreds of such candidates who had not
submitted their examination form for the Final Year and did not
apply for the post of Veterinary Officer considering the clear
language of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1963.
81. This Court is unable to countenance the Commission’s stand,
which is contrary to what has been provided in first proviso to
Rule 11 of the Rules of 1963. The Commission cannot be allowed
to take a stance which is opposed to express provision of the Rule
– a stand which seems to have been taken in order to obviate the
embarrassment due to ‘faux pas’ resulting from the draftsman’s
fault.
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (47 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
82. It is settled position of law that when there is a conflict
between the terms of the advertisement and the statutory Rules,
what is contained in the Rules has to prevail and not the terms of
the advertisement. This preposition of law is settled by Hon’ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Malik Mazhar (supra) and Ashok
Kumar Sonkar (supra) cited by learned counsel for the
petitioners (Group ‘A’).
83. That apart, it has clearly been the stand of the Commission
that a candidate to be eligible to apply must have appeared or
must be appearing in the Final Year Examination, as can be
gathered from the submission made by Mr. S.N. Kumawat, learned
counsel who appeared for the Commission in the case of
Rameshwar Prasad Choudhary (supra).
84. It would be apt to reproduce the stand of the Commission,
as has been noticed in the judgment of Rameshar Prasad
Choudhary (supra), as under:
“Mr SN Kumawat, learned counsel appearing for the
Commission has contested the writ petitions apart
from learned Dy Government Counsel. It is submitted
that petitioners were not eligible for selection for the
post of Veterinary Officer. The application was
permitted by those candidates who had appeared or
appearing in the final year of the required course. On
the date of submission of the application form by the
petitioners, they neither appeared nor were appearing
in the final year examination. The result of Fourth Year
examination was declared in the month on 17.5.2011
which was subsequent to the last date for submission
of application form. In view of above, petitioners
cannot be said to be the candidates who had appeared
or were appearing in the final year examination of the(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (48 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]required course thus they have been declared
ineligible for the post concerned.”
85. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur in the case of
Rameshwar Prasad Choudhary (supra) so also at Jodhpur in the
case of Manoj Kumar (supra) have held that only those candidates
can be said to be eligible, who have appeared or are appearing in
the Final Year Examination. Reproduction of relevant findings
recorded by this Court in the cases of (a) Rameshwar Prasad
Choudhary (supra), (b) Manoj Kumar (supra) and (c) Division
Bench judgment dated 25.08.2017 in the case of Manoj Kumar
(supra), would not be out of context:-
“(a)The rule aforesaid was amended by the Legislature
to avoid hardship of those who have already appeared
or appearing in the final year examination but due to
delay in declaration of the result, remains ineligible
though the selection test or interview is conducted
after gap of some time. If the object aforesaid is taken
into consideration, it protects those who have either
appeared or appearing in the final year examination
but not for those who would be appearing in the final
year examination after gap of time, as is the present
case.”
“(b) I have considered the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
The Note No.2 of the recruitment advertisement,
reproduced hereinabove, clearly prescribes that the
aspirant, for the post, should have appeared in the
Final Year of the qualifying degree or should be
appearing therein and only in such a condition, he/she
would be entitled for applying against the advertised
post. Admittedly, none of the petitioners had, cleared
the IVth Year Examinations of the 5 year qualifying
degree course which they were undergoing at the time
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (49 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
of issuance of the recruitment notification.
Consequently, by no stretch of imagination, can the
petitioners be considered as qualified for participating
against the advertised vacancies. The Hon’ble Jaipur
Bench of this Court examined an exact similar set of
facts and rejected the writ petitions of candidates
situated at par with the petitioners, by the order dated
25.07.2016. Thus, the petitioners too are required to
be dealt with similarly.
As a consequence of the above discussion, the
action of the respondents in holding the petitioners
ineligible from participating in the questioned
recruitment process cannot be termed to be illegal,
arbitrary or perverse so as to call for any interference
by this Court in the exercise of extraordinary writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.”
“(c)We do not find any merit with the argument
advanced.
The note on which appellants-petitioners are
relying reads as follows:
Þ2.mDr inks dh visf{kr “kS{kf.kd vgZrk ds vafre o’kZ esa lfEefyr gqvk gks ;k
lfEefyr gksus okyk O;fDr Hkh vkosnu djus ds fy, ik= gksxk] fdUrq mls vk;ksx }kjk
vk;ksftr lk{kkRdkj ls iwoZ “kS{kf.kd vgZrk vftZr djus dk lcwr nsuk gksxk vU;Fkk og
vik= gksxkAßA plain reading of the note aforesaid makes it
crystal clear that the candidates applying in pursuance
to the advertisement dated 02.05.2013 should have
appeared in final year examination of B.V.Sc. or going
to appear in final year examination. Admittedly, the
appellant-petitioners on the date relevant were not
student of final year examination of B.V.Sc. but of
fourth year, as such, the note concerned was not
having any application for them. The commission,
therefore, rightly rejected candidature of the
appellants-petitioners.”
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (50 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
86. On perusal of the findings recorded in the above judgments
of this Court, more particularly what has been discussed by the
Division Bench in its judgment dated 25.08.2017 (Re: Manoj
Kumar (supra)), it transpires that even the Note in the earlier
recruitments was exactly the same, as is available in the present
case. And dealing with such Note, the Division Bench has
concluded that the candidates applying pursuant to the
advertisement should have appeared in the Final Year Examination
of B.V.Sc. or going to appear in the Final Year Examination.
87. Needless to mention that the advertisement dated
22.10.2019 makes a clear reference of the Rules of 1963 and
cautions the candidates to carefully go through the Rules. Proviso
to Rule 11 of the Rules of 1963 explicitly provides that only those
candidates are eligible to apply, who have appeared or are
appearing in the Final Year Examination. Overlooking such
statutory position and ignoring the law, as has been settled by this
Court in the above referred judgments, if the candidates have still
applied and cleared the process of screening test, they have to
thank themselves. Giving leverage or benefit of doubt to such
candidates, would, according to this Court, be a misplaced
sympathy.
88. Similar view has also been taken in the case of Rakesh
Bakshi (supra), wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court has
observed that a person who clears the prescribed qualification
after the cut-off date, cannot be considered qualified and their
application itself ought to have been rejected.
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (51 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]
89. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Maharashtra Public Service Commission (supra), which Mr.
Shah (counsel for petitioners in Group B cases) had cited cannot
save their selection inasmuch as the condition of the
advertisement itself is open to two interpretation and the same
has not been drafted properly. This Court, therefore, concludes
that regardless of the of language used in the clause relating to
academic qualification ¼”kS{kf.kd vgZrk lacaf/kr izko/kku½, only those
candidates were eligible to apply pursuant to subject recruitment
notification, who had appeared or were appearing in the Final Year
Examination.
90. The candidates who had simply taken admission in the Final
Year of the B.V.Sc. Course, but had neither appeared in the Final
Year Examination nor had they filled-in examination forms with
examination fee, cannot be held eligible to apply pursuant to the
advertisement dated 22.10.2019.
91. Furthermore, in light of the observation made by Hon’ble the
Supreme Court that the respondents can issue appointment
orders, however, the same shall be provisional and shall remain
subject to outcome of the final decision and considering the order
which this Court has passed on 23.07.2020 in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 1543/2020, this Court is of the view that even on
equity, the petitioners of Group ‘B’ are not entitled to any
indulgence, as their appointment were/are provisional. Order
dated 23.07.2020 is extracted hereinfra:-
“Meanwhile, the respondents may conduct the
examination for appointment to the post of
Veterinary Officer, pursuant to the advertisement(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52670] (52 of 52) [CW-8568/2024]dated 22.10.2019, however, the result and
consequence shall remain subject to final outcome
and/or further order(s) passed in the present writ
petition.”
92. As an upshot of discussions foregoing, the writ petitions filed
by the petitioners of Group ‘A’ are therefore, allowed. The merit
list/select list issued by the Commission to the extent of inclusion
of candidates who have neither appeared in the Final Year
Examination of B.V.Sc. nor have submitted examination form by
24.11.2019 (the last date of submitting application forms) is
hereby quashed.
93. The Commission is directed to prepare a fresh merit list for
recommendation to the State, excluding all such candidates who
had neither appeared in the Final Year Examination of B.V.Sc. nor
had filled in examination form and deposited examination fee by
the last date of submitting application form i.e. 24.11.2019.
Needful be done within a period of two months from the date of
order instant.
94. Needless to mention that as a natural corollary to the
acceptance of writ petitions of Group ‘A’, the writ petitions filed by
petitioners of Group ‘B’ fail.
95. Stay applications and all other interlocutory applications also
stand disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA), J
1-5/Anil Makwana
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 10:01:51 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)