Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mohammad Javed vs State Of Rajasthan … on 16 May, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:23799-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 251/2025
1. Hari Om Meena son of Amar Lal Meena, aged about 30
years, resident of village and Post Vinod Khurd, Tehsil
Sangod, District Kota (Raj.).
2. Bindu Kumari Modi daughter of Nathmal Modi, aged about
47 years, resident of Phar Bazar, near Ramdev Temple,
Bikaner, District Bikaner (Raj.).
----Appellants
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan
2. Deputy Secretary, Administrative Reforms (Group-3)
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan
3. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development and
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Director, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1160/2024
Avinash Garg son of Shri Bheru Shankar Garg, aged about 40
years, resident of Village Parsoli, Tehsil Begun, District
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary. Panchayati Raj
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Commissioner, Panchyati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Bhagirath Choudhary son of Shri Hemraj Ji, aged about
40 years, resident of Village and Post Bara Khurd, Tehsil
(Downloaded on 06/06/2025 at 09:57:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23799-DB] (2 of 12) [SAW-251/2025]
Bawari, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1230/2024
Maya Kumari Yadav wife of Shri Jagdish Chandra son of Shri
Shankar Lal, aged about 39 years, resident of Gayadwada, Tehsil
Sagwada, District Dungarpur (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Deputy Secretary, Administrative Reforms (Group-3)
Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur,
Rajasthan.
5. Chandra Kumari Yadav daughter of Mohan Lal Yadav,
aged about 33 years, resident of Mukam Post Varda,
Tehsil Sagwada, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1231/2024
Mohammad Javed son of Abdul Rahmaan, aged about 35 Years,
resident of 162, Nagina Masjid Ke Piche, Mahaver Colony, Bundi,
(Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Deputy Secretary, Administrative Reforms (Group-3)
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasth
3. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development and
Panchyati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 06/06/2025 at 09:57:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23799-DB] (3 of 12) [SAW-251/2025]
4. The Director, Rural Development and Panchyati Raj
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 255/2025
1. Desh Raj Meena son of Girraj Prasad Meena, aged about
31 years, resident of Village and Post Bookna, Tehsil
Sapotra, District Karauli.
2. Sanju Kumari daughter of Lal Chand Goyal, aged about
37 years, resident of 1-B-109, Kudi Bhagtasani, Housing
Board, Jodhpur (Raj.).
3. Vijay Kumar Meena son of Shri Ram Meena, aged about
34 years, resident of Village and Post Jamdoli, Tehsil
Rajgarh, District Alwar.
4. Jeet Ram Meena son of Gopal Lal Meena, aged about 35
years, resident of Village Gordhanpura, Post Khareda
Buzurg, Tehsil Newai, District Tonk.
5. Ramesh Chand Meena son of Chhotu Ram, aged about 37
years, resident of Village Getor Wali Dhani, Dadanpura
Dungri Sheetla Mata, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Deputy Secretary, Administrative Reforms (Group-3)
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development and
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Director, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 292/2025
1. Pawan Kumar Meena son of Narsingh Lal Meena, aged
(Downloaded on 06/06/2025 at 09:57:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23799-DB] (4 of 12) [SAW-251/2025]
about 31 years, resident of Village and Post Kalyanpura,
Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.)
2. Ajay Pal Harijan son of Ram Singh Harijan, aged about 31
years, resident of Village and Post Kaluka, Tehsil
Mundawar/Hatundi, District Alwar.
3. Yogendra Kumar Sharma son of Hariom Sharma, aged
about 29 Years, resident of Village Shankarpur, Post
Kudhawal, Tehsil Todabhim, District Karauli.
4. Narendra Kumar Meena son of Om Prakash Meena, aged
about 36 years, resident of Village Rampura Jakiwal ki
Dhani, Post Gudhliya, Via Kundal, Tehsil Baswa, District
Dausa
5. Dharmenra Kumar Chaturvedi son of Suresh Chand
Sharma, aged about 33 years, resident of Village and Post
Loharwara, via Kanwat, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District
Sikar.
6. Ritu Kumari Laddha wife of Jai Prakash Gandoriya, aged
about 33 years, resident of F-122, Vijay Singhpathik
Nagar, Ghilwara.
7. Ajay Kumar Meena son of Jangli Ram Meena, aged about
31 years, resident of Village Parli, Post Chandera, Tehsil
Sikrai, District Dausa.
8. Kamlesh Kumar Meena son of Mohan Lal Meena, aged
about 31 years, resident of Patan, Geejgarh, District
Dausa.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Deputy Secretary, Administrative Reforms Group-3
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development and
Panchyati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Director, Rural Development and Panchyati Raj
(Downloaded on 06/06/2025 at 09:57:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23799-DB] (5 of 12) [SAW-251/2025]
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan
5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 414/2025
Anil Kumar Mahawar son of Babu Lal Mahawar, aged about 31
years, Village Meenapura, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary, Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj Department,
Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Commissioner and Joint Secretary (First),
Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department,
Jaipur.
3. Deputy Secretary, Administrative Reforms (Group-3)
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development and
Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan,
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. The Director, Panchayati Raj Rural Development
Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
6. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Barmer, District
Barmer, (Raj.).
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 457/2025
Ashok Kumar Meena son of Bhagwan Sahay Meena, aged about
33 years, resident of Paatan, Geejgarh, District Dausa,
Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through its Secretary-cum-
Commissioner, Panchayati Raj, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer-cum-Additional Examination
Controller, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
3. The Chief Executive Officer-cum-Additional Examination
Controller, Zila Parishad, Bikaner.
4. The Chief Executive Officer-cum-Additional Examination
Controller, Zila Parishad, Karauli.
(Downloaded on 06/06/2025 at 09:57:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23799-DB] (6 of 12) [SAW-251/2025]
5. The Chief Executive Officer-cum-Additional Examination
Controller, Zila Parishad, Bharatpur.
6. The Chief Executive Officer-cum-Additional Examination
Controller, Zila Parishad, Alwar.
7. The Chief Executive Officer-cum-Additional Examination
Controller, Zila Parishad, Jaipur.
8. The Chief Executive Officer-cum-Additional Examination
Controller, Zila Parishad, Dausa.
9. Bhuvneshvery Parul wife of Pushpendra Kumar, aged
about 32 years, resident of 99, Bairwa Basti, Bhandari
Berooni, Karauli, Rajasthan.
10. Sarita wife of Jasveer Kumar, aged about 36 years,
resident of ward no.1, Keru, Navalgarh, District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
11. Anmol Meena wife of Rohitash Kumar, aged about 30
years, resident of Shivaji Nagar, Behror, Alwar, Rajasthan.
12. Rinku Meena son of Mohan Lal Meena, aged about 30
years, resident of Paatan, Geejgarh, District Dausa,
Rajasthan.
13. Sonika daughter of Ramesh Kumar Bangadwa, aged
about 29 years, resident of Village Rayla, Post Jherli,
Tehsil Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
14. Roshan Meena wife of Girdhari Lal, aged about 30 years,
resident of 52, Dhani Basanwalo ki, Rooppura, Tehsil
Bassi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harish Kumar Purohit
Mr. Harsh Gupta
Ms. Apurva Raj Mathur, Advocates
For Respondent(s) : Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG
Mr. Pawan Bharti, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
(Downloaded on 06/06/2025 at 09:57:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23799-DB] (7 of 12) [SAW-251/2025]
Order
16/05/2025
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J :
In D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 251/2025:-
An application vide I.A. No.01/2025 has been filed under
section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 81 days in
filing the present Special Appeal.
2. Having considered the statements made in this application,
we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown by the
appellants and, therefore, I.A. No.01/2025 is allowed and delay of
81 days in filing this Special Appeal is condoned.
In D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 255/2025:-
An application vide I.A. No.01/2025 has been filed under
section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 139 days in
filing the present Special Appeal.
2. Having considered the statements made in this application,
we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown by the
appellants and, therefore, I.A. No.01/2025 is allowed and delay of
139 days in filing this Special Appeal is condoned.
3. A batch of writ petitions vide S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.24640/2022 and connected matters came to be decided by the
writ Court vide its order dated 23rd September 2024. Besides some
other minor grievances, the main grievance raised in the writ
petitions was with respect to inaction on the part of the
respondents in not filling up the advertised vacancies of the Lower
Division Clerk (in short, L.D.C.). All the writ petitioners were
seeking a direction for filling up the total advertised vacancy of
L.D.C., while some of them also laid a challenge to the
(Downloaded on 06/06/2025 at 09:57:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23799-DB] (8 of 12) [SAW-251/2025]communication dated 07th September 2022 which contained the
decision of the Government of Rajasthan through the Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj Department to fill up lesser
number of posts of the L.D.C.
4. The writ Court did not interfere in the matter and issued a
direction for making appointment only on 392 posts of L.D.C.
which were lying vacant by that time. The writ Court further
directed that the vacant 392 posts of L.D.C. shall be filled up from
the candidates who had participated in the recruitment exercise
started in the year 2013. However, the writ Court made an order
that the appointments already made shall not be disturbed. These
Special Appeals are directed against order dated 23 rd September
2024 by which the following directions were issued by the writ
Court :-
“A close reading of the above mentioned submissions made in
the additional affidavit clearly show that respondents are having
392 posts/vacancies still available with them for filling up the post
of LDC in pursuance of the advertisement issued by them in the
year 2013. Some of these vacancies are left unfilled on account of
the interim orders granted by different Courts. Thus, this Court is
of the view that the selection on the post of LDC remained intandem
for more than 11 years and, therefore, ends of justice will be met, if
the State Government is directed to consider the cases for
appointment of all the candidates who have participated by filling in
their application forms for the post of LDC in pursuance of the
recruitment drive undertaken by them in the year 2013 by
examining their merit position, eligibility and other credentials for
the post of LDC.
It is, however, made clear that the consideration for the
post of LDC in pursuance of the 2013 advertisement
cannot be treated as an on-going and, therefore, no further
directions/applications/petitions on this aspect of the matter shall be
entertained. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of
all similarly situated applicants viz-a-viz the present petitioners for(Downloaded on 06/06/2025 at 09:57:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23799-DB] (9 of 12) [SAW-251/2025]the post of LDCs keeping in mind the eligibility criteria and other
aspects of the matter for appointments as per the Rules.
The respondents are directed to complete this process at the
earliest so that a finality could be arrived at in concluding the
process of appointment in pursuance of the advertised vacancies of
the year 2013.
Needless to say that the appointments already granted by the
State Government shall not be disturbed by this decision in the
present cases.
With these observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
The stay applications and other pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.”
5. The aforementioned directions have been issued by the writ
Court in view of the affidavit filed by the State-respondents.
6. Mr. Harish Kumar Purohit, Mr. Harsh Gupta and Ms. Apurva
Raj Mathur, the learned counsels appearing for the appellants have
endeavoured to demonstrate that the decision taken by the State-
respondents to abolish a large number of posts of L.D.C. was a
malafide exercise of powers. It is submitted that after an
advertisement was issued in the year 2013 and 12911 posts were
designated as L.D.C., the State-respondents could not have
refused to make appointment against the advertised posts and
that too after filing compliance report in the Court that they shall
be making appointments soon.
7. Before examining whether the appellants have a right in law
to insist that the State Government must make appointments
against the advertised vacancies, a brief narration of the facts
leading to filing of these Special Appeals is necessary. It was
pursuant to the Advertisement No.14 which was issued on
18th February 2013 that the appellants submitted their online
applications for appointment on the post of L.D.C. At that time,
(Downloaded on 06/06/2025 at 09:57:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23799-DB] (10 of 12) [SAW-251/2025]
total number of vacancies in the districts of Rajasthan was 19515
and such number of posts was sanctioned for making
appointments vide decision dated 31 st August 2012. A district-wise
merit list was prepared and published during May and June 2013
indicating thereunder cut-off marks. According to the appellants in
Special Appeal Writ No.11106/2025, the appointments were made
to 7755 posts and the remaining posts remained unfilled on
account of the litigation which ensued due to the decision of the
State Government not to award 30 bonus marks to a certain class
of employees working under different schemes, more particularly,
those who were engaged through placement agency in the
Panchayati Raj Department. To this effect, the relevant provision is
contained under proviso to Rule 273 of the Panchayati Raj Act and
that provision was challenged by “Mitendra Singh Rathore and
Ors.” in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1723/2013 before this Court
contending that exclusion of the persons working through
placement agency to claim bonus marks was ultra virus. This
Court did find merit in such challenge and a Special Leave Petition
vide SLP (c) No.3200/2013 came to be filed in the Hon’ble
Supreme Court titled “State of Rajasthan v. Archana and Ors.“.
Before the final decision was rendered on 29 th November 2016 in
the aforesaid Special Leave Petition, the appointment process of
L.D.Cs had remained stayed by virtue of the interim order passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
8. According to the appellants, no further step was taken by the
State of Rajasthan for filling up the remaining vacancies.
Aggrieved thereby, a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.1560/2015 titled “Manoj Kumar Jain and Ors v. State of
(Downloaded on 06/06/2025 at 09:57:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23799-DB] (11 of 12) [SAW-251/2025]
Rajasthan and Ors.” was filed in this Court at Jaipur Bench. In the
said writ proceeding, a direction was issued to the Panchayati Raj
Department to finalize the process for selection. Pursuant thereto,
a meeting was held on 05th April 2017 and an affidavit was
submitted in the High Court in the light of which the writ petition
was disposed of on 07th April 2017 with certain directions to the
respondent-authorities. The appellants further pleaded that a
direction was also issued by the writ Court in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.17700/2018 vide order dated 04th May 2022 for filling
up the vacancies. However, the respondents did not come up with
any clear stand in the present proceeding and filed a compliance
report on 21st September 2024 taking a position that there were
only 392 posts vacant and a cadre structuring process was started
in the Panchayati Raj institutions at three levels. It was in this
background that the writ Court issued the aforementioned
directions and disposed of the writ petitions.
9. In our opinion, the plea of malafide exercise of power by the
State-respondents is not available to the appellants to challenge
the decision not to fill up all the advertised vacancies. Whatever
may be the reason, a recruitment process cannot continue for
years together after publication of the result. It shall be clear
breach of mandate under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India if a direction is issued to fill up the unfilled advertised
vacancies after about 12 years. Any appointment in the
Government must be made having due regard to the merit of the
candidates and, therefore, we find that the writ Court did not
commit any error in law while ordering that the appointment
against the vacant 392 posts shall be made by examining the
(Downloaded on 06/06/2025 at 09:57:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23799-DB] (12 of 12) [SAW-251/2025]
merit position, eligibility and other credentials for the post of
L.D.C. This is a well-settled position in the law that a mere
participation in the recruitment exercise does not provide a legal
right to the candidate to seek appointment. In “Jatendra Kumar v.
State of Punjab” (1985) 1 SCC 122, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that it is open to the Government to decide how many
appointments would be made. In “State of Haryana v. Subhash
Chander Marwar” (1974) 3 SCC 220, the candidates securing less
than 55% marks were not selected whereas there was a
requirement under the rules to secure only 45% marks. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the existence of vacancies
does not give any legal right to a selected candidate to claim
appointment. In “Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India” (1991) 3
SCC 47, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a candidate in
the select list shall have no vested right to seek appointment and
in a given case the employer can take a decision not to make
appointment to a particular post or number of vacancy.
Pertinently, the State-respondents have brought to the notice of
the Court that a fresh recruitment process has been initiated vide
advertisement dated 29th August 2024 after the recruitment
process of 2013 came to an end.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any
reason to interfere in these matters and, accordingly, D.B. Special
Appeal Writ Nos. 251 of 2025, 1160 of 2024, 1230 of 2024, 1231
of 2024, 255 of 2025, 292 of 2025, 414 of 2025 & 457 of 2025
are dismissed.
(SANDEEP SHAH), J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J
20-27 Arjun/Love /-
(Downloaded on 06/06/2025 at 09:57:13 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)