Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Narender Dhaker S/O Maniram Dhaker vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 May, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:16562]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 278/2025
1. Mohit Soni S/o Shri Giriraj Prasad, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident Of Village Pipaloda, Tehsil Bonli, District
Sawaimadhopur
2. Ramesh Kumar Vishnoi S/o Shri Raghunath Ram, Aged
About 33 Years, Permanent Resident Of Vishnoiyon Ki
Dhani, Rohat, District Pali
3. Mukesh Kumar Jakhar S/o Shri Panna Ram Jakhar, Aged
About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Udansar, Tehsil
Fatehpur, District Sikar
4. Arjun Singh Tanwar S/o Shri Kalu Singh, Aged About 31
Years, Resident Of 64, Ram Vihar Colony, Airport Road,
Jaipur
5. Parmeshwar S/o Bhera Ram, Aged About 27 Years,
Permanent Resident Of Podoki Dhani, Village Ranwa,
Tehsil Kuchamancity, District Nagaur
6. Dinesh Kumar S/o Hiralal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident
Of Pradhano Ka Mohalla, Village Nimaj District Pali,
Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Represented Through Principal
Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Krishi Agriculture
Institutional Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur Represented
Through Its Secretary
3. Director, Treasuries And Accounts, Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar,
Jaipur
4. Parasram Meena, Resident Of Village And Post Malrana
Dungar, Shesha, District Sawaimadhopur
5. Priyanka Verma D/o Shri Kalu Ram Verma, Resident Of
Near Darbar School, Nehru Colony, Sambharlake, District
Jaipur
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 202/2025
1. Vinod Patidar S/o Shri Lalji Patidar, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o- Village Mungana, Post Sundani, Village Mungana,
District Banswara, Rajasthan.
2. Yashvardhan Singh S/o Shri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan,
Aged About 26 Years, R/o- Village Post Jhousawa, Village
Chitri, Tehsil Galiyakot, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
3. Hemant Patel S/o Shri Devi Lal Patel, Aged About 31
Years, R/o- 239 Manwa Kheda Near Govt. School, District
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (2 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Rahul Saini S/o Shri Sitaram Saini, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o- Village Bansur Saini Bhawan Badh Bhav Singh Near
Petrol Pump, Kotputli Road, Alwar, Rajasthan.
5. Vinod Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Budhha Ram Yadav, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o- Nadiki Dhani, Lalpura Pachar, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
6. Satish Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Yadav,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o- Village Pachlangi, Jharayan
Nagar, Dhani Bawari Wali, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
7. Nishant Tiwari S/o Shri Suresh Chand Sharma, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o- Plot No. 261/37 Sector 26 Rhb
Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
8. Mukesh Kumar Chaudhary S/o Shri Kalu Ram Jat, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o- Village Trilokpura Post Nayan, Tehsil
Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
9. Gaurav Jindal S/o Shri Omprakash Gupta, Aged About 30
Years, R/o- Near Old Truck Union Mandrayal Road,
Karauli, Rajasthan.
10. Simartha Ram S/o Shri Teja Ram, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o- Dheerasar Pokhsar, Tehsil Chautan, District Barmer,
Rajasthan.
11. Suneel Chaudhary S/o Shri Tara Chand, Aged About 30
Years, R/o- Village Huliyana, Post Tikari, Tehsil Kathumar,
District Alwar, Rajasthan.
12. Bhagirath Chaudhary S/o Shri Laadu Lal Chaudhary, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o- Ibrahim Nagar, Post Payaga, District
Tonk, Rajasthan.
13. Ravi Sain S/o Shri Tara Chand Sain, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o- Ambedkar Colony, Kherda, District Swaimadhopur,
Rajasthan.
14. Rajesh Singh S/o Shri Vijay Pal Singh, Aged About 32
Years, R/o- Piplai Tehsil Pilani, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
15. Sandeep Tarar S/o Shri Rajendra Tarar, Aged About 27
Years, R/o- Purani Abadi, Ward No.4 Gali No.1 Chandani
Chowk, Shriganganagar, Rajasthan.
16. Ravi Rajan Rinwa S/o Shri Rampal Sharma, Aged About
30 Years, R/o- Near Panchmulhi Temple Gada Dham,
Thesil Didwana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
17. Mohan Prasad Yadav S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Yadav, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o- Asha Ki Kothi, Rabdan Ki Dhani,
Niwaru Road, Jothwara, Jaipur.
18. Mohit Jain S/o Shri Anand Jain, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o- Nayi Anaj Mandi Ke Samne, Link Road, Mahaveer
Nagar, Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
19. Rakesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Babu Lal Yadav, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o- 171 Khatodiya Ki Dhani, Village
Niwaru, Govindpura Link Road, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (3 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
20. Sajjan Singh Rao S/o Shri Chandan Singh Rao, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o- Village Dashahara, Post Bhachadiya,
District Banswara, Rajasthan.
21. Jitendra Kumar S/o Shri Purkha Ram, Aged About 32
Years, R/o- Sutharon Ki Dhani, Village Post Shergarh,
Tehsil Shergarh, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
22. Lekhraj Vishnoi S/o Shri Jodhram Vishnoi, Aged About 31
Years, R/o- Lamba Tehsil Bilara, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
23. Lalit Singh Sisodiya S/o Shri Bheem Singh Sisodiya, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o- Chaupasani, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
24. Ratan Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Singh Bhati, Aged About
30 Years, R/o- Bukansara, Baran, Sardarsahar, District
Churu, Rajasthan.
25. Rakesh Vishnoi S/o Manoar Lal Vishnoi, Aged About 29
Years, R/o 6/7 Near Prem Sagar Bera Gayatri Nagar
Parihar Nagar Jodhpur
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary Government
Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat Jaipur.
2. Chairman, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board State Institute
Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan 302018.
3. Deepali Arora D/o Maish Kumar, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of H.no. 2/128/old Rhb Colony, Ward No. 25
New, Suratgarh, Sri Ganganagar.
4. Anita Haritwal D/o Banwari Lal, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident Of Village Bhopatpura, Ringas, Sikar.
5. Anjana Jangid D/o Staya Narayan Sharma, Aged About 24
Years, Resident Of B-46, Natraj Nagar, Imli Phatak, Jaipur.
6. Amit Bansiwal S/o Hanuman Ram, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident Of Raigaro Ka Mohalla, Vpo Badu, Parbatsar
Dist. Nagaur.
7. Pushpendra Kumar Meena S/o Kalu Ram Meena, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Kharin Ka Jhonprai, Post Hingota,
Tehsil Mandawar, Dist. Dausa.
8. Vijay Kumar S/o Kupra Ram (Tsp-St), R/o Village
Lundada, Post Malnoo, Tehsil Bali, Dist. Pali.
9. Kishan Lal Navariya S/o Nathu Lal Navariya, Aged About
29 Years, 51/59, Pratap Nagar Sanganer, Jaipur.
10. Sonu Meena S/o Ram Prasad, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Village Gopalpura, Post Asnawer, Tehsil Kishanganj, Dist.
Baran.
11. Gauri Shankar Meena S/o Babu Lal Meena, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Village Post Bhanvati, The. Baswa, Dist. Dausa.
12. Ajay Kumar Meena S/o Giriraj Prasad Meena, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Vpo Alipur Th Mandawar, Dausa.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (4 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
13. Harkesh Meena S/o Meetha Lal Meena, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Jodli Kothi Vpo Nihalpura, The. Bejupada, Dist.
Dausa.
14. Munesh Kumar Bairwa S/o Chet Ram Bairwa, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Thikariya Village, Sikrai, Dist. Dausa.
15. Kamlesh Kumar Meena S/o Jayaarayan Meena, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Village Haripura, Post Maheshwar
Khurd, Thesil Dausa, Dist. Dausa.
16. Narsi Lal Meena S/o Kalu Ram Meena, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Village Chakrewas, Post Kolana, Tehl. Baswa,
Dist. Dausa.
17. Pooja Goyanka D/o Mahesh Chand Goyanka, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Chatikna, Near Mela Gae, Karauali.
18. Radhika Saini D/o Ramji Lal Saini, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Vill. Badgurjaro Ka Bag Karoth, Thel. Rajghar, Dist.
Alwar.
19. Urmila Dewat D/o Rispal Chand Dewat, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Sisodia Garden Colony, Haribau Upadhyay
Nagar, Ajmer.
20. Mast Ram Meena S/o Mukhalya Ram Meena, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Indpura, Post Thana Ranaji, Tehsil Rajgarh,
Dist. Alwar.
21. Jyoti Kumari Yadav D/o Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Aged About
29 Years, Villag Gailpur, Post Maseet, Tehsil Tijara, Dist.
Alwar.
22. Vineeta Meena D/o Ramkesh Meena, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Vpo Jhareda, Tehsil Hindaun City, Karauli.
23. Rakehs Kumar Meena D/o Badri Lal Meena, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Village Pattichimanpura, Post Talavgoan,
Tehsil Lalsot, Dausa.
24. Abhishek Meena S/o Ramjilal Meena, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Vpo Sankotra, Jamwramghar,jaipur.
25. Prem Singh S/o Meva Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Vill.
Nagla Chhailla, Post Shahpura, Teh. Bayana, Dist.
Bharatpur.
26. Indra Kumar Meena S/o Kalu Ram Meena, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Village Sumel Ka Bas, Post Poonkhar, Dist.
Alwar.
27. Swaroop Singh S/o Mohar Chand, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o H 48, Vishvakarma Colony, Behind Dattarye School,
Alwar.
28. Dinesh Meena S/o Bhagwan Sahay, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Asarpura Narayan Vihar O-Block, Meeno Ki Dhaani,
Mansarovar, Jaipur.
29. Parasram Meena S/o Hanuman Prasad Meena, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Village Post Shesha, Tehsil Malarna
Dunger, Dist. Sawai Madhopur.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (5 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
30. Mahendra Meena S/o Hari Ram Meena, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Vpo Fulwara, Tehl. Banwas, Sawaimadhopur.
31. Ravi Kumar Doriya S/o Beerbal Bairwa, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Dhani Barkhed, Bairwa Bhandarej Dausa.
32. Lokesh Mahawar S/o Badri Prasad Mahawar, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Bawadi Pada Mohalla, Dausa.
33. Sunil Kumar Bairwa S/o Om Prakash Bairwa, R/o Near By
Power House Bairwa Colony, Kherda Swaimadhopur.
34. Dinesh Dharth S/o Narayan Ram, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Meghwalo Ka Bas, Via Marwa Mundwara, Nagaur.
35. Sumit Mandawariya S/o Deendayal Mandawariya, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o 170 Raghunathpuri-Ii Near Airport,
Jaipur.
36. Rajdeep Kaur D/o Baldev Singh, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Kanga Colony, War No. 17 Near Kk Children School,
Hanumanghar.
37. Prakash Chanra S/o Raghunath Prasad Garg, Aged About
34 Years, R/o House No. 267, Chahappar Prara, Valmiki
Colony, Jaisalmer.
38. Yashwant Mahawar S/o Hemraj Mahawar, Aged About 32
Years, R/o 105/60 Vijay Path, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar,
Dist. Jaipur.
39. Devendra Singh S/o Manoj Kumar, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Vpo Sehna, Tehsil Rupbas, Dist. Bharatpur.
40. Vishnu Kumar Meena S/o Sharvan Meena, R/o Vpo Medi,
Teh. Wazirpur, Dist. Sawaimadhopur.
41. Pooja Kanwar D/o Ummed Singh, Aged About 26 Years,
Vpo Barna, Tehsil Degana, Dist. Nagaur.
42. Suresh Meena S/o Seeta Ram Meena, Aged About 24
Years, R/o 1050 Meeno Ki Dhani Begas, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
43. Mahaveer Meena S/o Prathviraj Meena, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Village Kundi Post, Mundkya Tehsil Chhabra,
Dist. Baran.
44. Neeraj Kumar Sharma S/o Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 34 Years, Resident Of Kishan Nagar Near New
Telephonic Exchange Hindaun City Hindaun Karauli Pin
Code 322230.
45. Anurag S/o Purushotam Lal Sharma, Aged About 32
Years, Resident Of Resident Of Dheerajpura, Rampura,
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan 333036
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 347/2025
1. Dharmandra Singh Sheshma S/o Shri Bhadur Singh
Sheshma, Aged About 29 Years, R/o- Budh Singh Ki
Dhani, Hod Via Khandela, Sikar, Rajasthan-332709
2. Nishant Upadhyay S/o Shri Yogesh Kumar, Aged About 26
Years, R/o-Chandpole Gate Ke Pass, Namak Katra,
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (6 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
Bharatpur, Rajasthan-321001
3. Tulsi Ram Meena S/o Shri Ram Bharos Meena, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o- Vpo-Kodyai, Teshil-Bonli, Sawai
Madhopur, Rajasthan-322030
4. Hitesh Pathak S/o Shri Narayan Lal Pathak, Aged About
30 Years, R/o- Vill-Bahadurpur, Post-Jatnangla, Hindaun
City, Karauli, Rajasthan- 322236
5. Zakir Hussain S/o Shri Nafi Mohammad, Aged About 30
Years, R/o- Cheepo Ka Bas, Salawas, Jodhpur, Rajasthan-
342013
6. Sunil Tiwari S/o Shri Chandra Prakash Tiwari, Aged About
30 Years, R/o- Pareeko Ka Mohalla, Kalwar, Jaipur,
Raajasthan-303706
7. Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Moolchand, Aged About 32
Years, R/o- Jaisinghpura, Badawasi, Nawalgarh,
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-333042
8. Bharat Singh Mali S/o Shri Chhotu Singh Mali, Aged About
31 Years, R/o- Mali Mohala, Saradhana, Ajmer, Rajasthan-
305206
9. Bhupender Singh S/o Shri Gurmel Singh, Aged About 34
Years, R/o- V.15 Rb Po 71 Rb, Raisinghnagar, Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan-335051
10. Anoop Kumar S/o Shri Banwari Lal, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o- Plot No. 35, Residency Campus, Udaipur Rajasthan-
313001
11. Sitaram Sahu S/o Shri Amararam Sahu, Aged About 29
Years, R/o- Vpo-Kuntasar, Sri Dungargarh, Bikaner,
Rajasthan-331803
12. Gopal Singh S/o Shri Birma Ram Manda, Aged About 32
Years, R/o- Kokpura, Arakasar, Kuchaman, Nawa, Nagaur
Rajasthan-341519
13. Ankit Katewa S/o Shri Ramesh Chand, Aged About 34
Years, R/o- Vpo- Bakhtawarpura, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-
333023
14. Sachin Mahiya S/o Shri Rajveer, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o- Ward No.14, Chak 4Md, Meharwala, Hanumangarh
Rajasthan-335526
15. Banwari Lal S/o Shri Ramkumar, R/o- Merta City Tehsil-
Merta City, District Nagaur, State-Rajasthan, Pincode-
341510
16. Dharmesh Kumawat S/o Shri Banshi Lal Kumawat, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o- 02 Dagliyo Ki Magri, Near Shiv
Temple, Bhuwana, Udaipur, Rajasthan-313001
17. Mohit Yadav S/o Shri Ramswaroop Yadav, Aged About 25
Years, R/o- Kundanpura, Pahadiya, Phagi, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-303904
18. Mahendra Khichar S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Khichar, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o- Vpo-Jodpura, Chandpura, Kuchaman
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (7 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
City, Nagaur, Rajasthan-341508
19. Ram Gopal Kumawat S/o Shri Ratan Lal Kumawat, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o- Baragaon, Baragaon, Udaipurwati,
Jhunjhunu Rajasthan-333021
20. Gopal Puri Goswami S/o Shri Kailash Puri Goswami, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o- Khayra, Badamahua, Bhilwara,
Rajasthan-311401
21. Hitesh Meena S/o Shri Samandar, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o- Vpo-Salempur Khurd, Bhusawar, Bharatpur
Rajasthan-321407
22. Gajendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ram Khiladi Meena,
Aged About 25 Years, R/o-Aam Ka Jhahara, Nadauti,
Karauli, Rajasthan-322213
23. Devendra Kumar Bhojak S/o Shri Hanut Mal Bhojak, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o- Ward No. 08, Manju Mata Mandir Ka
Pass, Sardarshahar, Churu, Rajasthan-331403
24. Shri Gopal S/o Shri Kundan Mal Pareek, Aged About 26
Years, R/o- Gogasar, Ratanghar, Churu, Rajasthan-
331504
25. Kapil Kumar S/o Shri Rajeer, Aged About 27 Years, R/o-
Nawan, Rajgarh, Churu, Rajasthan-331301
26. Mukesh Nath S/o Shri Rameshwar Nath, Aged About 27
Years, R/o- Katariyasar, Bikaner, Rajasthan-334022
27. Mohan Lal S/o Shri Dhanna Ram, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o- Vayad Tec-Rohat, Pali Rajasthan-306421
28. Anurag Agarwal S/o Shri Murari Lal Agarwal, Aged About
31 Years, R/o- 162 Ganesh Nagar 8, Niwaru Road,
Jhotwara, Jaipur Rajasthan-302012
29. Manish Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Shashikant Sharma, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o- 20/a Kaushal Nagar, Bandikui,
Dausa Rajasthan-303313
30. Mahesh Kumar Swami S/o Shri Chhotu Ram Swami, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o- 21-A, Gulab Vihar, Sirsi Road,
Panchyawala, Jaipur Rajasthan-302034
31. Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Vinod Kumar, Aged About 27
Years, R/o- Ward No. 5, Gilwala, Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan-335526
32. Yogesh Acharya S/o Shri Manak Chandhanut Mal, R/o-
Pragya Kunj Near Gyatri Temple, Merta City, District-
Nagaur, State Rajasthan-341510
33. Kailash Chand Yadav S/o Shri Chouth Mal Yadav, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o- Bhuranpura Nesti Po Lakher Th
Amer, Jaipur Rajasthan-303104
34. Rajesh Nitharwal S/o Shri Kesar Nitharwal, Aged About 30
Years, R/o- Jaipura, Kadera, Chaksu, Jaipur, Rajasthan-
303901
35. Nitish Vijay S/o Shri Ramesh Vijay, Aged About 33 Years,
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (8 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
R/o- 26 Mahaveer Nagar, Ranjke Wale Baba Ke Pass,
Tonk, Rajasthan-304001
36. Bajrang Jakhar S/o Shri Sugana Ram Jakhar, Aged About
30 Years, R/o- Balesh Ka Tiba, Roopangarh, Ajmer
Rajasthan-305814.
37. Kuldeep Poonia S/o Shri Ramswaroop Poonia, Aged About
28 Years, R/o-Village Himmatpura, Post- Devgaon Nua,
District-Jhunjhunu-Rajasthan-333707
38. Ramcharan Dholiya S/o Shri Shankar Ram, Aged About
32 Years, R/o- 273, Jaton Ka Bas, Ghantiya, Nagaur
Rajasthan-341510
39. Akash Bhardwaj S/o Shri Jagdish Bhardwaj, Aged About
29 Years, R/o-5/346, Behind Khadi Bhandar, Shiv Colony,
Karauli, Hindaun City , Rajasthan-322230
40. Pushpendra Kumar S/o Shri Mohar Singh, Aged About 28
Years, R/o- Village- Dusraheda, Post-Barodameo, Tehsil-
Laxmangarh, Alwar Rajasthan-301021
41. Hemant Kumar Agarwal S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar
Agarwal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o- 5-Ka-Housng Board,
Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Near Jhulelal Temple, Jaipur, State-
Rajasthan-302016
42. Ravi Saini S/o Shri Hariom Prakash, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o-42, Krishna Colony, Near Ambedkar Circle, Opposite
Jhalani Hospital, Alwar, Rajasthan-301001
43. Amar Chand Meena S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad Meena,
Aged About 30 Years, R/o- Ward No. 13 Behind Of Fort
Danta Ramgarh, District- Sikar, Rajasthan-332703
Rajasthan-
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance
Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Department Of Treasuries And Accounts, Through
Director, Jyothi Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary,
Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 518/2025
1. Monika Verma D/o Sitaram Verma, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Plot No.06, Kesar Nagar, Bajri Mandi Road,
Panchyawala, District Jaipur, Raj., 302034.
2. Veerendra Singh S/o Ram Karan, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Jatmasi Tehsil Rupbas, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
324103
3. Rahul Dubga S/o Govind Dubga, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Behind Anathalaya Vivek Nagar, Distt. Bikaner (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (9 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
334001
4. Ravindra Kumar Regar S/o Prabhu Lal Regar, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Village Bindhya Bhata, Teh. Jahazpur,
District Bhilwara 311201
5. Ravipal Singh S/o Likhmaram Pindar, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Bobasar Bidawatan, Teh. Sujangarh, District
Churu (Raj. 331507.
6. Naveen Kumar Jatav S/o Ramesh Chand Jatav, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Peepalkhera, Post Salwari, Distt.
Alwarl (Raj.) 301035.
7. Nishu Behwal D/o Brij Mohan Behwal, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Plot No. C-18 D, Narayan Vihar, Jagnnathpura,
Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.) 302029.
8. Rinku Kumar Nayaq S/o Ram Pratap Nayaq, Aged About
30 Years, R/o V/p Bhojyakheri, Tehsil Anta, District Baran,
(Raj.) 325202
9. Kanak Lal S/o Radheshyam, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Village Khohara Kalan, Post Biletha, Tehsil Jahazpur,
District Bhilwara (Raj.) 311203
10. Mahaveer Singh S/o Rajendra Kumar, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Near Gsss 45 Ndr, Devnagar,
District Hanumangarh (Raj.) 335803
11. Indraj Meena S/o Jay Dayal Meena, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Vill. Munapura, Post Kot, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa
(Raj.) 321609
12. Sanjay Kumar Regar S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Vill. Khinyera, Teh. Loonkaranasar, Distt.
Bikaner (Raj.) 334603
13. Lalit Kumar S/o Rajendra Kumar, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Near 100 Number Railway Gate, Subhash Nagar,
Merta Road, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.) 341511
14. Pooja Kumari Meena D/o Ram Kunwar Meena, Aged About
26 Years, Village- Jawalika Badh Baswa, Teh. Baswa, Post
Baswa, District Dausa (Raj.) 303327
15. Sunil Kumar Bohra S/o Chetan Lal Bohra, Aged About 30
Years, R/o 231, Jadamba Nagar, Back Side Of Heerapura
Power House, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.) 302021.
16. Rishi Raj Meena S/o Ram Kesh Meena, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Vpo Sewa, Tehsil Wazirpur, District Sawai
Madhopur, Raj., 322219.
17. Vijendra Kumar S/o Purn Chand, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Ward No.14, Jogiasan, Regar Mohalla, Nohar, District
Hanumangarh, Raj., 335523.
18. Uday Singh Meena S/o Rambharosi Meena, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Nai Meena Ka Pura, Todabhim, District
Karauli (Raj.) 321611.
19. Suraj Kumar Kilania S/o Shishpal Kilania, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Ward No.02, Dundlod, District Jhunjhunu, Raj.,
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (10 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
333702.
20. Pradeep Sakrawal S/o Kalu Ram Sakrawal, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Mkb 410, Manoharpura, Kachhi Basti
Jagatpura, District Jaipur, Raj., 302025.
21. Suman Meena D/o Gulab Chand Meena, Aged About 28
Years, R/o P-201, Mahal Road, Rohini Nagar, Jagatpura,
Teelawala, District Jaipur (Raj.) 302017
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat,
Jaipur, 302005.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Secretary,
Rajya Krishi Prabandh Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura,
Jaipur-302018.
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 796/2025
Arpita Jain D/o Paras Mal Jain, Aged About 22 Years, R/o 85/140,
Sector 8, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance
Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Department Of Treasuries And Accounts, Through
Director, Jyothi Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary,
Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 801/2025
Ankit Sharma S/o Shri Ram Dayal Sharma, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o- B-82, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur, District-Jaipur, State-
Rajasthan -302015
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance
Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Department Of Treasuries And Accounts, Through
Director, Jyothi Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary,
Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 869/2025
1. Geeta Verma D/o Ramlal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo
Rulana, Tehsil Danta Ramgarh, District Sikar, Raj.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (11 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
-332601.
2. Deepak Solanki S/o Gopal Solanki, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o G-66, New Bapu Nagar, District Bhilwara, Raj.
-311001.
3. Rajesh Sharma S/o Satya Narayan Sharma, Aged About
34 Years, R/o A-163, Goverdhan Nagar, Toll Tax, Tonk
Road, District Jaipur, Raj.-302033.
4. Prakash Kumar Saini S/o Babu Lal Saini, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Beda Ki Dhani, Ward No.18, Lalsot, District
Dausa, Raj.-303503.
5. Ashish Kumar Meena S/o Ram Singh Meena, Aged About
27 Years, R/o House No.165, Opp. K. D. Central Academy
School, Meena Colony Lata House Street Udai Mob,
District Sawaimadhopur, Raj.-322201.
6. Pinki Dewana D/o Prabhu Lal Meena, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Village Kushalpura, Post Saiwar, Tehsil
Jamwaragarh, District Jaipur, Raj.-302027.
7. Sharmila Meena D/o Hemraj Meena, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Village Bandha, Post Lorwara, Tehsil Sawai
Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur, Raj.-322701.
8. Ritesh Kumar Sharma S/o Deen Dayal Sharma, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Chipi Mohalla, Village Post Bhandarej
Dausa, District Dausa, Raj.-303501.
9. Ravindra Chouhan S/o Vijay Kumar, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Ward No.32, Bhami Basti Dabla Road, District Churu,
Raj.-331001.
10. Mahendra Kumar S/o Basti Ram, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Arat Ka Jav, Siwana, Raj.-344044.
11. Yatendra Kumar Tailor S/o Vishwabandhu Tailor, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o H.n. 26, Shiv Colony, Devpura,
District Bundi, Raj.-323001.
12. Balwant Lakshkar S/o Ramji Lal Lakshkar, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Village Toonga, Post Toonga, Tehsil Bassi,
District Jaipur, Raj.-303302.
13. Mohit Kumar Jain S/o Ashok Jain, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Village Bonl, Post Bonl, Tehsil Todabhim, District
Karauli, Raj.-321611.
14. Hariram Saran S/o Ram Chandra, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Gadhwala Bikaner, District Bikaner, Raj.-334001.
15. Lokesh Saini S/o Ghasi Ram Nagra, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Vpo Mor, Tehsil Todaraisingh, Via Malpura, District
Tonk, Raj.-304502.
16. Shiv Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Shree Ram Ki Nangal, Sanganer, District Jaipur, Raj.
-302022.
17. Dhudi Lal Khorwal S/o Panchu Ram Raigar, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Vill. Kela Ka Bas, Post Behlod, Distt. Jaipur Raj.
-303120
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (12 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
18. Ramavtar Aludiya S/o Gopal Aludiya, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Vill. Mohini, Post Lawa Via Diggi, Teh. Peeplu,
Distt. Tonk Raj. -304504
19. Pukhraj S/o Thakra Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vill.
Ranasar Khurd, Teh. Gudamalani, Distt. Barmer , Raj.
-344033
20. Priya Janu D/o Vijay Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Vill. Charan Singh Nagar, Distt. Jhunjhunu 333026 (Raj.)
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat,
Jaipur, 302005.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Secretary,
Rajya Krishi Prabandh Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura,
Jaipur-302018.
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 870/2025
1. Dinesh Kumar Saini S/o Bhagirath Lal Saini, Aged About
40 Years, R/o 146 Pratap Colony, Nai Ki Thadi, Jamwa
Ramgarh Road, Jaipur, 302027
2. Krishan Kumar Sharma W/o Kailash Chand Sharma, Aged
About 36 Years, R/o 55-B, Khandelwal Nagar-C, Prem
Nagar Pulia, Loniyawas, Jaipur, Amber, Raj. 302031.
3. Shiv Dayal Gurjar S/o Ganesh Lal Gurjar, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Panwar Mod, Ambapura, Tonk, Raj- 304804.
4. Lalit Singh S/o Sube Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Village Shahjadpur Post Jasai, Teh, Mundawar, Alwar, Raj.
301427.
5. Adnan Ahmed S/o Moinuddin, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Plot No. 70. Near Masjid, 22 Godam, Jaipur- 302006.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat,
Jaipur 302005.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Secretary,
Rajya Krishi Prabandh Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura,
Jaipur-302018.
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1351/2025
1. Narender Dhaker S/o Maniram Dhaker, Aged About 38
Years, R/o 88, Gummat, Near Prahalad Kund, Hindaun
City, Karauli, Rajasthan.
2. Devendra Singh S/o Ghanshyam Singh, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Barkau, Po- Dahra, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
3. Rahul Kumar Garg S/o Anil Kumar Garg, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Gopal Ji Mandir Ke Paas, Weir, Bharatpur,
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (13 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
Rajasthan.
4. Surendra Kumar S/o Durgesh Prajapat, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Usha Mandir Ke Paas, Bhiter Wadi, Bayana,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
5. Hariom Jangid, S/o Rajendra Prasad, Aged About 34
Years, R/o 00, Civil Line Sector- 2, Damadam Road,
Bayana, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
6. Deepak Kumar Dhakad S/o Bahadur Singh, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Khohra, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
7. Bhojendra Singh S/o Tota Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Mudhera, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government
Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Chairman, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1524/2025
1. Kuldeep Ratnu S/o Narpat Singh, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Near Karni Temple, Karni Colony, District Nagaur
(Raj.) 341001
2. Ravipal Singh S/o Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Vpo Chirani, Teh. Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
333503
3. Vijay Kumar Bhargav S/o Ram Naresh Bhargava, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o 100 Feet Road, Hill View Colony,
Chhabra District Baran (Raj.) 325220
4. Sah Dev Ram Bera S/o Hukma Ram Bera, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Shekhasani, District Nagaur (Raj.) 341510
5. Deepak Kumar Sharma S/o Kamlesh Kumar Sharma,
Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vill. Jagrampura, Post Meena
Koleta, Teh. Bamanwas, Distt. Sawaimadhopur (Raj.)
322211
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat,
Jaipur, 302005.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Secretary,
Rajya Krishi Prabandh Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura,
Jaipur- 302018
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1539/2025
Devendra Nath S/o Shri Budh Nath, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 4, Vpo Netewala Sri Ganganagar, District
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (14 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan-335001
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Represented Through Principal
Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Krishi Agriculture
Institutional Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur Represented
Through Its Secretary.
3. Director, Treasuries And Accounts, Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar,
Jaipur.
4. Parasram Meena, Resident Of Village And Post Malrana
Dungar, Shesha, District Sawaimadhopur.
5. Priyanka Verma D/o Shri Kalu Ram Verma, Resident Of
Near Darbar School, Nehru Colony, Sambharlake, District
Jaipur.
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1693/2025
1. Priyanka D/o Bal Chand, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward
No.01, Valient Public School Ke Pichhe, Bangla Nagar,
District Bikaner, Raj. -334004.
2. Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary S/o Jagdish Narayan
Chaudhary, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village
Sadarampura, Post Thali, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur,
Raj. -303901.
3. Yashana Kumari D/o Raman Lal, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Vpo Milakpur, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur, Raj.
-321302.
4. Rajesh S/o Gordhan Lal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village
Basni Kaviyan, Post Chanwandia Kallan, Viakushalpura,
District Pali, Raj. -306305.
5. Aman Meena S/o Kailash Chand Meena, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village Moondoti Meeno Ka Bhera, Post
Moondoti, District Jaipur, Raj.-303328.
6. Deepika Gupta D/o Brij Kishore Gupta, Aged About 23
Years, R/o 57 B, Sitaram Bhawan, Shanti Nagar, Ajmer
Road, District Jaipur, Raj. -302006.
7. Yash Raj Reel S/o Devi Chand Reel, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Takiya Chandshaha Market Ke Samne, Ghodo Ka
Chowk District Jodhpur, Raj. -342001.
8. Shakuntala Rajpurohit D/o Kalyan Singh Rajpurohit, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Mansa Road Kotri, District Bhilwara,
Raj. -311603.
9. Sultan Singh Meena S/o Vishambhar Dayal Meena, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Vpo Jhareda, The Hindaun City,
District Karauli, Raj. -322230.
10. Rahul Gupta S/o Brij Kishore Gupta, Aged About 28 Years,
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (15 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
R/o 57 B, Sitaram Bhawan, Shanti Nagar, Ajmer Road,
District Jaipur, Raj. -302006.
11. Surbhi Pareek D/o Lalit Kumar Pareek, Aged About 27
Years, R/o 10-C-23, Tilak Nagar, District Bhilwara, Raj.
-311001.
12. Tosif Raza S/o Mohammad Saddiq, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o 25-26, Ashrafi Complex, Ahmed Hussain Colony,
Behind St. Mathews Church, Rani Road, District Udaipur,
Raj. -313001.
13. Gajendra Meena S/o Phool Chand Meena, Aged About 30
Years, R/o 74, Namdev Nagar Benad Road, Boytawala,
Jhotwara, District Jaipur, Raj. -302012.
14. Nikita Khichad D/o Ramavatar Khichad, Aged About 26
Years, R/o 34, Balaji Vihar-10, Anokha, Gaon Road,
Harmada, District Jaipur, Raj.-302013.
15. Rohit Choudhary S/o Suresh Choudhary, Aged About 24
Years, R/o 368, Chhipo Ka Mohalla, Ayad District Udaipur,
Raj.-313001.
16. Deepak Kumar Meghwal S/o Poonam Chandra, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o 00, Village Achalpura, Meghwal
Mohalla, Semarthali, Chhotisadri, Tehsil Chotisadari,
District Pratapgarh, Raj.-312604.
17. Niranjan Meena S/o Ramraj Meena, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Village Kiradi, Post Hadoti, Tehsil Sapotra, District
Karauli, Raj.-322033.
18. Himanshu Kaswan S/o Krishan Gopal, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Vpo Dhandhlas Uda, Tehsil Merta City, District
Nagaur, Raj.-341510.
19. Vikram Singh Panwar S/o Bhoor Singh Panwar, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Vill. Basani Kaviyan, Post Chawandia
Kallan, Teh. Raipur, Distt. Pali Raj. – 306305
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat,
Jaipur, 302005.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Secretary,
Rajya Krishi Prabandh Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura,
Jaipur-302018.
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1849/2025
Mool Chand Mandawat S/o Shri Prakash Chand, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Rajor Karauli, Bhandari Anduruni, State- Rajasthan-
322238.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance
Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (16 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
2. Department Of Treasuries And Accounts, Through
Director, Jyothi Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary,
Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1865/2025
1. Rincal D/o Dinesh Kaswan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o A-
73 B, Dadhichi Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Vijay Pal S/o Ram Chandar Khichar, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Vpo Jaisingh Desar, Magra, District Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance
Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Department Of Treasuries And Accounts,
Jyoti Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary,
Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2658/2025
Komal Yadav D/o Gokul Prasad Yadav, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Village Nangal Tulsidas, Post Bhanpur Kalan, Tehsil
Jamwaramgarh, Via Amer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance
Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Department Of Treasuries And Accounts,
Jyoti Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary,
Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2796/2025
Jyotsna Khinchi D/o Rameshwar Khinchi, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o 51 Vasundhara Vihar Baran Road Borkhera Kota Rajasthan
324001
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance
Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (17 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
2. Department Of Treasuries And Accounts, Through
Director, Jyothi Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary,
Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 614/2025
1. Gajendra Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Rajendra Singh
Shekhawat, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Plot No. 18 Shiv
Nagar, Near Aryan International School, Kishorepura
Road Hathoj, District Jaipur. Presently Working As Clerk
Grade-Second In The O/o Additional Senior Civil Judge
And Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur
Metropolitan-First.
2. Vikram Singh S/o Shri Nand Singh Shekhawat, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o Panlawa, Lachhmangarh, District-
Sikar, Rajasthan. Presently Working As Clerk Grade-Ii In
The O/o District And Session Judge, Sikar.
3. Rahul Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Satya Narayan Sharma,
Aged About 32 Years, R/o 142B, Aarya Nagar Vistar,
Dadi Ka Fatak, Nearby Aanchal Paridhan, Murlipura,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan. Presently Working As Clerk
Grade-Second In The O/o Judicial Magistrate No.-13,
Jaipur Metropolitan-First.
4. Sukhram Chaudhary S/o Shri Anda Ram Chaudhary,
Aged About 32 Years, R/o 100 Jato Ka Bass Village Post
Banar, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Presently Working As
Junior Assistant In The O/o District Legal Services
Authority, District Jodhpur.
5. Bhoopendra Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Village Premnagar Post Mandha Tehsil
Paota, District Jaipur. Presently Working As Clerk Grdae-
Ii In The O/o Adj-05, Jaipur Metropolitan-Ii.
6. Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri Amra Ram, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Near Mundra Circle, Jodhpur Road, Behind
P.w.d. Office, Pipar City, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Presently
Working As Junior Assistant In The O/o District Legal
Services Authority, Jodhpur.
7. Amardeep S/o Shri Asha Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Village Paliyas, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan. Presently Working As Clerk Grade-I In The
O/o District And Session Judge, Ajmer.
8. Arvind Kachchhawah S/o Shri Dhanraj Kachchhawah,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o Maliyon Ka Uguna Bass, Pipar
City, Jodhpur. Presently Working As Clerk Grade-Ii In The
O/o Judicial Magistrate-09, Jodhpur Metropolitan.
9. Indra Jeet S/o Shri Sayar Chand, Aged About 27 Years,
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (18 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
R/o 09, Maliyon Ka Bass, Khurkhura Khurd, Tehsil
Mundwa Nagaur, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. Presently
Working As Clerk Grade-Ii In The O/o Gram Nyayalaya,
Jayla, Merta, Rajasthan.
10. Vikas S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Vpo Khandwa The Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. Presently Working As Clerk
Grade-Ii In The O/o District And Session Judge,
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance
Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel And Training, Government Of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat Jaipur.
3. The Director, Treasury And Accounts Department,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary,
Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 697/2025
1. Somendra Joshi S/o Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Village Garhi, Post Morda, Tehsil
Todabhim, District Karauli (Rajasthan).
2. Nirbhay Singh S/o Shri Ramkumar, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Vpo Sewar, Heera Pansari Ki Gali, Tehsil Bharatpur,
District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
3. Hemendra Kumar S/o Bhagirath Tanwar, Aged About 44
Years, R/o 150, Mill Colony, Opp. Railway Station,
Beawar, District Ajmer. (Rajasthan).
4. Sandeep Godara S/o Sohan Lal Godara, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Godara Sadar, Patel Nagar, Old Shivbari Road,
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. Prabhakar Dandotiya S/o Shri Ramakant Sharma, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Dandotiya Sadan, Near City Jublie
Hall, Patpara Road, District Dholpur (Rajasthan).
6. Rishabh Jain S/o Jinendra Kumar Jain, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Plot No. 102, Sector No. 2, Near Shiv Mandir,
Opp. New Bus Stand, Housing Board Colony, District
Tonk (Rajasthan).
—-Petitioners
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (19 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat
Jaipur.
2. Chairman, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302018.
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 904/2025
1. Shubham Singh S/o Lokendra Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Bajrang Nagar, In Front Of Bhagwan Talkies,
Near Kumher Gate, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
2. Rahul Katara S/o Parmanand Sharma, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Vpo Dahra, Kumher, Deeg, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance
Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Department Of Treasuries And Accounts,
Jhoti Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary,
Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2073/2025
Babita Mew D/o Mohan Lal Mew, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo
Gudha Salt, District Nagaur (Rajasthan).
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Chairman, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302018.
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2080/2025
1. Manisha Meena D/o Halka Ram Meena, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Village- Gurjar Ganvada, Hindaun City, Karauli
Rajasthan 322234.
2. Mukesh Kumar Regar S/o Laxman Lal Regar, Aged About
24 Years, R/o Village Barla, Tehsil Kotri, District Bhilwara
Rajasthan 311011.
3. Aman Kant Jatav S/o Durga Prasad, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Chudiya Darwaja, Jatav Basti, Hindaun,
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (20 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
Karauli Rajasthan 322230.
4. Bharti Meena D/o Kamal Phool Meena, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Plot No. 98 Behind Lic Bhawan Jaipur
Rajasthan 302005.
5. Dinesh Kumar Bunkar S/o Narayan Lal Bunkar, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o V/p Barana Teh.(Block)-Asind
Barana, Dist. Bhilwara, Rajasthan 311301.
6. Abhijeet Meena S/o Amma Lal Meena, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Vill. Rambas Post Hatundi, Teh. Mundawar,
Rambas, Alwar, Rajasthan 301427.
7. Mukesh S/o Teja Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vill.
Chachiwad Bara, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Sikar,
Rajasthan 332311.
8. Pavan Kumar Tanwar S/o Prahalad Ray Tanwar, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Bhagton Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 06
Pachar, Sikar, Rajasthan 332710.
9. Pooja Meena D/o Kripal Meena, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Vpo Parvaini, Teh. Reni, District Alwar, Rajasthan
301409.
10. Roopnarayan Prajapat S/o Prahalad Prajapat, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o – V/p Kakor Teh. Uniyara, District
Tonk, Rajasthan 304024.
11. Pushpendra Meena S/o Rajendra Singh Meena, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o 185 Avadhpuri – 2Nd Mahesh Nagar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan 302015.
12. Saloni Khandelwal D/o Ramavtar Khandelwal, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Bhagyodai Nagar Iii, Ajmer Road
Kekri, District Ajmer, Rajasthan 305404.
13. Sushila Saini D/o Suresh Kumar Saini, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Samod Raod Pakka Bandha Chomu, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan 303702.
14. Vishwajit Singh Sisodiya S/o Jai Singh Sisodiya, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o 74 -Khaparda Shri Abhay Krishi
Farm Udai Bilas Road, Mandawa Khaparda, Dungarpur,
Rajasthan 314001.
15. Sumit Kumar Bhatt S/o Laxmi Kant Bhatt, Aged About
30 Years, R/o 9G 7Rc Vyas Colony, District-Bhilwara,
Rajasthan 311001.
16. Kiran Verma D/o Narendra Kumar Verma, Aged About 26
Years, R/o 33, Keshav Colony Gangori Bazar Jaipur
Rajasthan 302002.
17. Ashish Kumar S/o Rajendra Kumar, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Near Masjid Baragaon Teh. Udaipurwati,
Jhunjhunu Rajasthan.
18. Tarachand Narsiram Khorwal S/o Narsiram Khorwal,
Aged About 26 Years, R/o Gedha Kalan Dist. Nagaur
Rajasthan 341520.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (21 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
19. Hari Om Saini S/o Narendra Saini, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Laxminarayan Ji Hanuman Ji Mandir Ke Pass Pipal Ke
Niche Village Khoti Tehsil Pachphar, Dist. Jhalawar
Rajasthan 326502.
20. Suresh Kumar Saini S/o Shish Ram Saini, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Dhani-Kankarala, Village-Gura Dhahar, Teh.
Udaipurwati, Dist. Jhunjhunu Rajasthan 333053.
21. Rajni Kumari Lata D/o Suresh Kumar Lata, Aged About
36 Years, R/o Plot No.78 Shivpuri -C Colony Swarn Path
Jaipur Rajasthan 302012.
22. Anshu Goyal D/o Sitaram Goyal, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Meena Kirshi Farm, In Front Of E-208 Murlipura
Scheme Jaipur Rajasthan 302039
23. Manish Devdwal S/o Ghanshyam Devdwal, Aged About
30 Years, R/o V/p Ajmeripura Teh .chaksu Distic Jaipur
Rajasthan.
24. Manish Ajay Pal S/o Ramniwas, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o 11 Dwd, Gram Panchayat 6,7 Dwd Rawatsar,
Hanumangarh Rajasthan.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance
Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Department Of Treasuries And Accounts, Through
Director, Jyothi Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary,
Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3702/2025
1. Geeta Bairwa D/o Sitaram Bairwa, Aged About 29
Years, R/o 26 A, Shiv Colony, Saganer Jaipur Rajasthan
302029.
2. Varsha D/o Kalu Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Jarau
Kalan Jhintiya Nagaur Merta District Sikar Rajasthan
341513.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance
Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Department Of Treasuries And Accounts, Through
Director, Jyoti Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary,
Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (22 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14560/2024
1. Ashok Kumar Yadav S/o Shree Mangal Chand Yadav,
Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Dhani Gullakhan,
Post- Prithampuri, Dist- Sikar, Rajasthan- 332708
2. Suresh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ramkalyan, Aged
About 29 Years, Resident Of Village Hatholi Post
Borda Tehsil Pipalada District- Kota
3. Radhakrishan Gocher S/o Shri Mangilal Gocher, Aged
About 29 Years, Old Resident Of Ward No. 5 Bhunen
Post Kherula Tehsil Digod District- Kota
4. Farhan Mohammad S/o Shri Hasam Ali, Aged About
25 Years, Old Resident Of Ambedkar Colony Badi
Basti Pushkar District Ajmer
5. Pramila Kumari D/o Shri Gokul Chand, V.p. Gudli
Tehsil Suratgarh District Sri Ganaganagar.
6. Dhan Raj Saini S/o Ghan Shyam Saini, Resident Of
Bawadi Wale Balaji Ka Pass Tonk Road Newai District
Tonk
7. Meena Yadav D/o Shree Bhagchand Yadav, Aged
About 30 Years, Resident Of Dhani- Khariyawali, Vill-
Kolwa, Post- Mundru, Dist- Sikar, Rajasthan- 332712
8. Mukesh Kumar Pareek S/o Shree Mahendra Mohan
Pareek, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Pareek
Mohalla, Shrimadhopur, Dist- Sikar, Rajasthan-
332715
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Finance Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.)
2. The Director, Treasury, Jyoti Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur
3. The Revenue Board, Ajmer, Through Its Registrar
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, Rajasthan
Agriculture Management Institute Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur-302018 Through Its Secretary
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (23 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
—-Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 810/2025
1. Narendra Singh S/o Shri Madan Singh Sonigara, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o 227, Gram Chawandian Kalan,
Tehsil Jaitaran, District- Pali.
2. Khushal Chand S/o Shri Chandan Mal, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Near Panchayat Bhawan, Vpo Bithora
Kalan, Tehsil Marwar Junction, District- Pali, (Raj.)
3. Suresh S/o Shri Kishna Ram, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Village Kuda, Post Panchala, Tehsil Sanchore,
District- Jalore, (Raj.)
4. Hemant Sen S/o Shri Arun Dev Sen, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Flat Pr 157 Government Quarter, Housing
Board, In Front Of SBI Bank, Pali, (Raj.)
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Finance, Secretariat, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Krishi Agriculture
Institutional Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur Represented
Through Its Secretary.
3. Parasram Meena, Resident Of Village And Post
Malarna Doongar, Shesha, District Sawaimadhopur.
4. Priyanka Verma D/o Shri Kalu Ram Verma, Resident
Of Near Darbar School, Sanbarlake, Dist- Jaipur.
—-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Utkarsh Dubey
Mr. Abhay Singh
Mr. Kunal Sharma
Mr. Ajatshatru Mina with
Mr. Movil Jeenwal
Mr. Himanshu Kala
Mr. Nripraj Bhati
Mr. Anand Sharma for
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (24 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
Mr. Anoop Pareek with
Mr. Parnav Pareek
Mr. Tarun Verma for
Mr. Shivatma Kumar Tank
Mr. Aamir Khan for
Mr. Ram Pratap Saini
Mr. Sudhir Yadav for
Mr. Brajesh Kumar Jatti
Mr. Nikhil Kumawat
Mr. Kunal Sharma
Mr. Mohammad Wasim Khan
Mr. Vikash Ghosalya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kartikaya Sharma with
Mr. Aditya Sharma for
Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG
Ms. Manju Joshi, AGC with
Ms. Deepa Singh
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Maheshwari with
Ms. Bhavana Ladha
Dr. Abhinav Sharma
Mr. Shobit Tiwari with
Mr. Pushpendra Singh Tanwar
Mr. Rohit Tiwari
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
REPORTABLE
Reserved on: 12/03/2025, 17/03/2025 &
27.03.2025
Pronounced on: 05/05/2025
1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the core
controversy requiring adjudication predominantly pertains to the
legality and validity of the impugned result dated 17.12.2024
declared by the respondents in pursuance to the examination
conducted in furtherance to the advertisement dated 20.06.2023
whereby the respondent-Board had invited applications for the
post of Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant.
Although ancillary issues are also raised, the principal question of
law revolves around the legality and validity of the impugned
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (25 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
result whereby the respondents have included the candidates of
Ministerial Employees (hereinafter referred to as ‘ME category’) by
treating their candidature in the SC, ST or General category.
Having regard to the commonality of issues both in law and in
fact, and upon consent being recorded from the learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties, this Court deems it
appropriate to treat SBCWP NO. 278/2025 titled as Mohit
Soni and Ors. Vs. State Of Rajasthan and Ors. as the lead
petition for the purposes of this adjudication.
2. It is, however, considered apposite to clarify at the
outset that while there may exist factual variances among the
individual petitions constituting the present batch, such
discrepancies are confined solely to the narrative factual matrices
peculiar to each case. They do not impinge upon or detract from
the common questions of law which fall for consideration before
this Court. Accordingly, the judgment rendered herein shall apply
to all the writ petitions connected and heard together with the
lead matter, on a mutatis mutandis basis, subject to necessary
adaptation to the individual factual contexts where required.
3. Before proceeding to examine the present petitions on
their merits, it is imperative to first delineate the foundational
facts and the core issues arising therein. A precise appreciation of
the factual matrix and procedural background is essential to
contextualize the grievances of the petitioners and the legal
questions that fall for adjudication. The salient aspects of the
petitions are, therefore, summarized as under:
FACTUAL NARRATIVE:
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (26 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
4. On 21.09.2022 the respondent-Board issued an
advertisement (advertisement no. 9/2022) inviting applications
from eligible candidates for the Common Eligibility Test –
Graduation Level Examination, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as
‘CET’). Consecutively, on 20.06.2023 the respondent-Board issued
an advertisement (advertisement no. 2/2023) for recruitment to
5190 posts of Junior Accountant and 198 posts of Tehsil Revenue
Accountant. Out of the advertised posts, 12.5% of the vacancies
under the non-TSP (Tribal Sub-Plan) area, and three (03) posts
under the TSP area, were earmarked for reservation in favor of
candidates falling under the ME category.
5. After the receipt of application forms, the respondents,
on 06.12.2023, declared the cut-off marks based on CET scores.
Distinct cutoff marks were prescribed for different categories,
namely, General, Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), Scheduled
Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes
(OBC), Most Backward Classes (MBC), and special categories
including the ME category. Notably, the cutoff marks under the ME
category were determined at 31.8792, which was substantially
lower than the cutoffs prescribed for the other categories.
6. Thereafter, on 20.12.2023, the respondent-Board
issued the list of candidates eligible to appear for the Main
Examination for the posts of Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue
Accountant. The said Main Examination was conducted on
11.02.2024. Subsequent thereto, on 27.06.2024, the respondents
declared the category-wise cutoffs and called candidates, twice
the number of advertised vacancies, for the process of document
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (27 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
verification. The cutoffs declared for various categories were
illustratively as follows: SC (General) – 447.46, SC (Female) –
319.30, OBC (General) – 555.61, OBC (Female) – 461.30, and for
the ME category, the cutoff was fixed at 519.12.
7. The controversy in the present petitions emanated
when it came to light that certain candidates, who have initially
secured eligibility to appear for the Main Examination by availing
the relaxed cutoff of 31.8792 applicable to the ME category, were
subsequently considered in categories such as General, SC, ST,
OBC, and MBC at the stages of main examination evaluation,
document verification, and final selection. The grievance of the
petitioners is that these candidates, despite failing to meet the
higher cutoff marks determined for the ME category at the stage
of the Main Examination (i.e. 519.12), were improperly called for
document verification and included in the selection process.
8. Representations were submitted before the respondents
by the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates,
contending that candidates who had availed themselves of the
initial benefit of relaxed standards under the ME category could
not subsequently migrate to and claim selection under other
reserved categories, and that such action amounted to conferring
upon them the impermissible ‘benefit of double reservation’. It
was specifically asserted that such candidates, being ineligible in
terms of the prescribed cutoffs, ought to be excluded at the stage
of document verification itself.
9. In view of the above, the petitioners assail the final
merit list declared on 17.12.2024, contending that the same is
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (28 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, and violative of their rights,
inasmuch as it deprives them and similarly situated candidates of
fair consideration for appointment, and confers unlawful
advantage upon ineligible candidates.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
that the present controversy necessitates adjudication upon
substantial questions of law, inter alia, as follows:
A. Whether candidates who availed the benefit of relaxed
standards under the Common Eligibility Test (CET) should
necessarily be retained within the same category at the stage of
the Main Written Examination, as mandated by Rule 6 of the
Rajasthan Common Eligibility Test Rules, 2022 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘CET Rules, 2022’)?
B. Whether a candidate who, by availing the benefit of the ME
category, qualified at the CET stage with lower marks, could
subsequently seek consideration under their original categories
(such as SC, ST, OBC, etc.) during the Main Examination or at
later stages of the recruitment process, despite not meeting the
requisite cutoff prescribed for the ME category at the Main
Examination for the posts of Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue
Accountant Services?
C. In context of such a situation, would the exclusion of a
person who is selected under a ME category (Horizontal) in
preliminary examination, but in main examination has not
qualified under the ME category, while qualifying under the
respective vertical reservation category amount to a violation of
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (29 of 58) [CW-278/2025]the fundamental rights as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India.
11. In support of these propositions, learned counsel placed
substantial reliance upon Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the
Constitution of India, emphasizing the constitutional guarantee of
equality and protection against arbitrariness in public
employment. Attention was drawn to Rule 6 of the Rajasthan
Subordinate Accountant Services Rules, 1963 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Rules of 1963’), as well as the terms of the
advertisement dated 20.06.2023, wherein reservation for the ME
category was prescribed at 12.5% on a horizontal basis, without
any further bifurcation into SC, ST, OBC, or other vertical
categories, akin to the reservation pattern applicable for ex-
servicemen category.
12. Further reliance was placed upon the proviso to Rule 6
of the CET Rules, 2022, which stipulates that where relaxed
standards are applied for calculating lesser than fifteen times the
number of advertised posts for the purposes of cutoff for
appearance in the Main Examination, such relaxation must operate
strictly within the respective category. Consecutively, it was
contended that from a bare perusal of the provisions of Rule 6 of
the CET Rules, 2022 it can be deduced that the state government
has considered the category of ME as a reservation, and the same
falls under the category of horizontal reservation as that same cut
across all the vertical categories. It was thus contended that the
migration or shifting of candidates availing relaxed standards
under the ME category into vertical categories (such as
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (30 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
SC/ST/OBC) for the purpose of selection was impermissible.
Learned counsel had further argued that such an arbitrary and
illegal approach by the respondents has seriously prejudiced their
rights and fair chance of selection.
13. In continuation, it was urged that applying the principle
of literal interpretation, as consistently upheld by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the respondents were obligated to adhere strictly
to the express language of the statute. Nevertheless, in the
absence of any ambiguity in the statutory scheme, no deviation or
expansive interpretation was permissible. Accordingly, candidates
who had availed horizontal reservation benefits (ME category)
could not be permitted to subsequently claim vertical reservation
benefits (SC/ST/OBC) in violation of the statutory mandate.
14. It was further apprised that the respondent-Board after
considering the non-availability of the required number of
candidates, lower down the cut-off of the ME candidates, and have
set a distinct cut-off of 31.87 marks, in addition to the various
vertical cut-offs for vertical reservation. Resultant to which, certain
candidates who did not meet the requisite cut-off in their
respective categories could qualify in the ME Category with
significantly lower marks.
15. To further demonstrate the prejudice suffered by the
petitioners, counsel placed reliance on the manifest injustice
caused to the petitioners whilst permitting the ‘double reservation’
in the selection process in question. The relevant data vis-à-vis
the candidates passing the CET examination as per the relaxed
standards of ME category is tabulated herein below:
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (31 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
Table of candidate passing the CET examination as per
relaxed standard of ME:
S. Name CET Marks Main marks Cut off
No. and category and category marks of
category
(ME)
1. Priyanka 107.2575 504.8061 519.1201
(1684519) SC ME SC
2. Moolchand 149.4868 511.1178 519.1201
Meghwal ME
(1296846) SC
3. Jasvinder 143.2834 470.2289 519.1201
Dhore ME
(1394115) SC
16. In support of the submissions made insofar, learned
counsel relied upon a catena of judgments passed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court, a few amongst others were Arul Nadar vs.
Authorised Officer, Land Reforms reported in (1998) 7 SCC
198, reiterating the principle of strict interpretation of
unambiguous statutory provisions; Dadi Jagannadham vs.
Jammulu Ramulu & Ors. reported in (2001) 7 SCC 71,
emphasizing that plain and unambiguous language must be given
its ordinary meaning; Jitendra Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. State
of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 119, holding that
migration between categories after availing of reservation benefits
is impermissible; Gaurav Pradhan & Ors. vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (2018) 11 SCC 352, addressing
the impermissibility of dual benefits under horizontal and vertical
reservations; Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2000)
1 SCC 430, reaffirming the constitutional mandate against double
reservation and Sourav and Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan
and Ors.: SBCWP No. 20250/2023.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (32 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
17. It was then contended that if all the CET would be only
an eligibility examination, the separate cut-off of different
categories, especially ME category would not be disclosed.
Moreover, disclosing category wise cut-off in CET Examination and
taking fifteen times candidates for respective categories itself
show that in the final recruitment examination fifteen times
candidates will compete within themselves.
18. In view of the foregoing, it was vehemently urged that
the impugned selection process and the final merit list dated
17.12.2024, insofar as it permits such impermissible migration
and confers unlawful dual benefits, deserves to be quashed and
set aside as being unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, and violative
of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
a) Submissions made by counsel representing the
respondent-State and its instrumentalities:
19. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the
respondents drew the attention of this Court to the foundational
and material facts relevant for adjudication in the present batch of
writ petitions. It was submitted that pursuant to the initial
advertisement dated 21.09.2022, an amended requisition
(Arthana) was communicated by the respondents vide letter dated
26.12.2022 to the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (hereinafter
referred to as “the Board” or “RSSB”), requisitioning 5190 posts,
inclusive of 3267 vacancies for the post of Junior Accountant. In
furtherance thereof, a fresh advertisement dated 20.06.2023 was
issued by the Board, in conformity with the provisions contained in
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (33 of 58) [CW-278/2025]the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963
and the Rajasthan Scheduled Area Subordinate Ministerial
and Class IV Service (Recruitment and Other Conditions of
Service) Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of
2014”).
20. Learned counsel further apprised the Court that the
entire selection process in question was conducted and supervised
exclusively by the respondent-Board (RSSB) without any
interference or role of the State Government. It was contended
that every procedural aspect from the issuance of advertisement,
amendment of categories, conducting of examinations, to the
declaration of final results was administered solely under the aegis
of the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board.
21. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
Board submitted that the rules governing the selection process,
along with the terms and conditions applicable thereto, were
explicitly enunciated in the advertisement itself. All candidates,
including the petitioners herein, were fully cognizant of these
conditions prior to submission of their respective online application
forms. It was urged that the petitioners, having voluntarily
participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the
governing rules and conditions, and having been unsuccessful
therein, cannot now be permitted to assail the process.
Accordingly, it was contended that the instant petitions are liable
to be dismissed in limine, being barred by the doctrine of estoppel
by conduct.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (34 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
22. Adverting to the specific facts, it was submitted that
pursuant to the office order dated 27.06.2024, a list of
provisionally selected candidates comprising 200% of the
advertised posts was prepared. Thereafter, as per the circular
issued by the Department of Personnel (DOP) dated 22.08.2024,
the process of document verification for the said provisionally
selected candidates was undertaken by the Treasury and Accounts
Department. Consequent thereto, a final list of eligible and
selected candidates was prepared, culminating in the declaration
of the final result on 17.12.2024. As per the said result, a total of
4759 candidates — comprising 4257 candidates for the Non-TSP
area and 222 candidates for the TSP area were recommended for
appointment to the post of Junior Accountant. Similarly, 178
candidates — comprising 154 candidates for the Non-TSP area and
25 candidates for the TSP area were recommended for
appointment to the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant.
Subsequently, vide office order dated 09.01.2025 an additional
207 candidates were recommended for the post of Junior
Accountant and 11 candidates for the post of Tehsil Revenue
Accountant.
23. Insofar as the ME category is concerned, it was
submitted that out of 647 seats advertised under the said
category, recommendations for 634 selected candidates were
already made, and only 13 seats remained vacant in the Non-TSP
area. It was clarified that all candidates qualifying under the ME
category in the CET Examination were duly considered and
selected strictly within the ME category itself in the main
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (35 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
examination conducted by the respondent-Board. It was
specifically emphasized that no candidates were accommodated or
considered belatedly under vertical reservation principles at a later
stage.
24. It was further contended that the result declared on
17.12.2024 was strictly in consonance with the Department of
Personnel circular dated 24.06.2008, which sets out the general
principles regarding reservation in public employment. Particular
reliance was placed on point No. 20 of the said circular, which
delineates the methodology for preparation of the merit list in
direct recruitment. It was thus urged that the selection process
and the declaration of result have been carried out in accordance
with the governing statutory rules, executive instructions, and in a
transparent, fair, and lawful manner, leaving no ground for
interference by this Court.
b) Submissions made by counsel representing the
private-respondents:
25. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private
respondents has vehemently opposed the maintainability of the
present writ petitions, asserting that the same are wholly
misconceived, bereft of merit, and liable to be dismissed in limine.
26. It was contended that none of the petitioners herein
have secured marks above the cutoff prescribed under their
respective vertical reservation categories, and therefore, they
have failed to qualify on merits. Consequently, they are ineligible
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (36 of 58) [CW-278/2025]to claim any right of appointment under the notified recruitment
process. It was further submitted that the selection process
involved a structured and multi-staged approach, each phase
governed by a distinct cutoff criterion. The learned counsel
delineated the following three stages of cutoffs applied during the
selection procedure:
26.1 CET Stage Cutoff: The first cutoff arose at the stage of
the Common Eligibility Test (CET), which served as a screening
examination, whereby candidates who secured marks above the
notified cutoff were permitted to fill application forms for the main
competitive examination.
26.2 Document Verification Stage Cutoff: The second cutoff
was applied at the stage when candidates were shortlisted for
document verification, based on the ratio of two times the number
of advertised vacancies in each category, in accordance with the
applicable norms.
26.3 Final Selection Cutoff: The third and final cutoff was
implemented during the preparation of the final merit list, post the
conclusion of the competitive examination process.
27. The learned counsel submitted that the entire selection
process was governed by three statutory instruments, each
applicable at different stages of the recruitment procedure:
27.1 The Rajasthan Common Eligibility Test Rules, 2022,
(“CET Rules”)
27.2 The Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules,
1963
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (37 of 58) [CW-278/2025]27.3 The Rajasthan Reservation Act, 2008, formally titled
The Rajasthan Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward
Classes, Special Backward Classes and Economically Backward
Classes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions in the
State and of Appointments and Posts in Services under the State)
Act, 2008.
28. It was further contended that as per the proviso to Rule
6 of the CET Rules, it is mandatory that 15 times the number of
advertised posts be shortlisted for the main competitive
examination. However, where such number of candidates is not
available strictly on merit, relaxation is permissible under the said
proviso, category-wise, to achieve the object of the Rule and to
ensure broad-based participation up to the prescribed limit. It is
an admitted position by both parties that candidates possessing
marks lower than the minimum cutoff prescribed for the ME
category were permitted to fill forms for the main examination in
order to fulfill the mandatory 15 times ratio. Such relaxation, was
made uniformly across the category to avoid any deficiency in the
pool of eligible candidates.
29. Learned counsel strenuously argued that the nature
and object of the CET and the subsequent main competitive
examinations for Junior Accountant (JRA) and Tehsil Revenue
Accountant (TRA) are fundamentally distinct. While the CET is a
screening or eligibility test designed to reduce the administrative
burden and filter candidates on the basis of minimum
qualifications, the main examination is a substantive selection test
governed by separate service rules, namely the Rules of 1963,
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (38 of 58) [CW-278/2025]which have an entirely different object and framework. Therefore,
any suggestion of double reservation or overlapping applicability
of the reservation policy between the CET and main examination is
wholly misconceived and erroneous.
30. It was further urged that Rule 6 read with Rule 7 of the
Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963, mandates
that 12.5% of the advertised posts be earmarked for candidates
belonging to the ME category. In furtherance of this objective, and
notwithstanding the lower marks obtained by some of the
candidates in the CET, Rule 6 of the CET Rules was invoked to
permit their participation in the main examination, thereby
satisfying the reservation mandate under the Rules of 1963.
31. The learned counsel also referred to the DoP Circular
dated 24.06.2008, particularly Para 20 thereof, which outlines the
procedure for preparation of merit lists in direct recruitment,
incorporating both vertical and horizontal reservations. It was
submitted that the selection process adhered strictly to these
guidelines, and the interplay of both reservation types was
managed in accordance with settled legal principles. In support of
this submission, reliance was placed upon a catena of
authoritative judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including:
Vikas Shankla v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal: 2016 AIR (SC)
5265, Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.: (2010) 3 SCC
119, Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P.:(2021) 4 SCC 542 Ram
Naresh v. State of M.P.: AIR 2024 SC 4252, and Rajesh
Kumar Daria v. RPSC: AIR 2007 SC 3127 amongst others.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (39 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
32. The learned counsel further submitted that the CET and
the main competitive examination operate on different statutory
planes and cannot be equated or intermingled. While the CET
serves to assess minimum eligibility without applying the
reservation matrix, the main examination involves merit-based
selection with full application of reservation policies, both vertical
and horizontal, consistent with Article 309 of the Constitution of
India and prevailing recruitment norms.
33. On the issue of “migration”, it was submitted that the
present case does not involve migration in the legal sense, which
occurs when candidates from reserved categories secure selection
in the unreserved/general category on merit. It was clarified that
the petitioners have incorrectly construed the concept of
reservation, relaxation, exemption, and preference, thereby giving
rise to baseless allegations of irregularity.
34. In this regard reliance was placed on the landmark
judgment of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3)
SCC 217, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court exhaustively
delineated the legal contours of reservation in public employment.
It was argued that reservation is a beneficial provision and
horizontal reservation cannot operate in isolation, divorced from
vertical reservation. In this context, attention was drawn to the
structure of the application form, which categorically demarcates
“General Category” (vertical reservation) and “Special Category”
(horizontal reservation), thereby evidencing the composite
structure of the reservation scheme.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (40 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
35. In light of the above, it was submitted that the entire
selection process was undertaken in strict compliance with the
applicable rules, executive instructions, and judicial precedents.
The petitioners, having failed to qualify on merit within their
respective categories and having participated in the process
without protest, cannot now be permitted to challenge the
process. Accordingly, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed
with exemplary costs.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:
36. Having heard the rival arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for all the parties, upon a perusal of the material
available on record, scanning the judgments cited at the Bar and
juxtaposing the contentions noted herein above, this Court at the
outset is of the view that the following issues arise for
consideration before this Court:
36.1 Whether the action of the respondents in permitting
candidates belonging to the Ministerial Employee (ME) category
who had initially availed the benefit of a substantially relaxed
cutoff under the ME category at the Common Eligibility Test (CET)
stage to migrate and claim selection under other reserved
categories (such as SC, ST, OBC, or MBC) at the Main Examination
and subsequent stages, is legal, valid, and sustainable in law.
36.2 Whether candidates who availed the benefit of relaxed
eligibility standards under the ME category at the preliminary
stage, but failed to meet the requisite cutoffs prescribed for the
ME category at the Main Examination stage, could be permitted to
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (41 of 58) [CW-278/2025]participate in the document verification process or be included in
the final selection list.
36.3 Whether the inclusion of such candidates in the final
merit list dated 17.12.2024 results in an illegal conferment of dual
benefits (commonly referred to as “double reservation”), and
whether such inclusion vitiates the selection process as being
arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
36.4 Whether the final merit list dated 17.12.2024 is liable
to be quashed and set aside, and if so, what consequential
directions, if any, are required to be issued to ensure a lawful and
equitable selection process.
37. The matter before this Court pertains to the process of
recruitment for the post of Junior Accountant in the State of
Rajasthan, governed by the Rules of 1963 and CET Rules, 2022. It
is not in dispute that an advertisement was issued on 20.06.2023
for the recruitment to the post of Junior Accountant pursuant to
the CET Rules, 2022. The said advertisement explicitly invoked the
applicability of the provisions of the CET Rules, 2022 read with the
Rules of 1963.
38. As a conjoint observation and deduction vis-à-vis the
issues noted hereinabove it is opined that as per Rule 6 (iii) of the
Rules of 1963, it is unequivocally provided that “12.5% of the total
number of posts of Junior Accountant shall be filled in by way of
direct recruitment from amongst the Ministerial Staff holding the
posts in various departments of the Government of Rajasthan,
who are substantively appointed in the cadre and who are
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (42 of 58) [CW-278/2025]otherwise eligible under the Rules.” This provision is a mandatory
reservation in favor of the ministerial cadre and is to be
interpreted strictly in accordance with the Rules. The relevant Rule
is reproduced herein below:
“6. Method of Recruitment;-
1.—
(i) —
(ii) —
(iii) Provided also further that 12.5 % of the post of
Junior Accountants to be filled in by direct recruitment
shall be reserved for being filled in from amongst the
ministerial staff of all the departments of the
Government holding a post in Cadre substantively,
subject to their being found otherwise eligible for such
recruitment under the Rules. This reservation shall be
carried forward only to the next succeeding year.”
39. During the course of proceedings, the respondents –
State Government and the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, in
their respective replies, have admitted on record that the process
of competitive examination and subsequent main examination was
carried out in accordance with the applicable reservation
mechanism. It has further been brought to the notice of this Court
that the State and the Board have adhered to the directives as
contained in the Circular dated 24.06.2008, issued by the DoP,
which lays down the guidelines for the implementation of
reservation in selection and recruitment processes. The said
Circular prescribes the method of application of horizontal and
vertical reservations and is binding upon all recruiting authorities
of the State. The compliance with the reservation mechanism as
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (43 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
per the Circular dated 24.06.2008, in conjunction with the
statutory prescription under Rule 6(iii) of the Rules of 1963,
reflects that the selection process in hand is carried out in a
manner consistent with the prevailing legal and administrative
framework. The DoP Circular dated 24.06.2008 provides the
procedural mechanism for preparing the merit list and effecting
reservation in direct recruitment. Clause 20.3 of the Circular
explicitly mandates that horizontal reservations are to be adjusted
against vertical categories post the selection process. In the
instant matter, the recruiting agency has adhered to the
framework laid down by the Circular and relevant rules. For the
sake of convenience the relevant provision for preparation of the
merit list in direct recruitment is reiterated herein below:
“20. Preparation of merit list in direct recruitment
20.1 We now come to the question of how to select
candidates so that all the categories get the number
of posts reserved for them. Separate lists of
candidates in the order of their merit should be made
for each category for which there is reservation – SC,
ST, OBC, OC women, SC women, ST women, OBC
Women, PD, ES, NG and SP – as well a common list.
In the first round, first of all, the OC category
candidates as are the number of vacancies in the OC
category should be selected. Any member of the
SC/ST/OBC category, appearing in this list should be
counted towards OC category unless he has taken
some concession admissible to of SC, ST these
categories other than concession in fees. Thereafter,
list of SC. ST and OBC candidates should be prepared
from the remaining candidates in the lists and OBC
categories respectively.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (44 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
20.2 In the second round, it should be ensured that
women get adequate vacancies. If the number of SC
women is less than the number of vacancies reserved
for them, the shortfall should be made up by selecting
SC women from amongst the remaining SC women in
the SC women list, in order of merit, and deleting an
equal number of males from the selected list of SC
category candidates in reverse order of their merit.
Similar exercise should be done for the ST, OBC and
then the open competition lists.
20.3 Reservation for the persons with disabilities, ex-
servicemen, non-gazetted employees and sports
persons is also horizontal and should be then ensured.
Thus, from amongst these four lists, the shortfall, if
any, of persons with disabilities, ex-servicemen, non-
gazetted employees and sports persons should be
calculated. In the third round, this shortfall should be
made up by selecting sufficient number of persons
from the lists of these categories, in order of merit, so
as to fulfill the shortfall. For each person so selected,
one person (the least meritorious) of same category
as the person selected should be removed from the
list of that category made in the second round. If
there is no shortfall in any of these categories viz
persons with disabilities ex-servicemen, non-gazetted
employees and sports persons, there is no need to
make any extra selection.”
40. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the
provision for 12.5% reservation in favor of ministerial staff under
Rule 6(iii) of the Rules of 1963 is not a mere enabling provision
but a statutory mandate, and any deviation from its
implementation would vitiate the recruitment process to that
extent. In view of the above, this Court holds that the reservation
granted to the ministerial staff under Rule 6(iii) of the 1963 Rules
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (45 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
is valid, enforceable, and must be implemented in strict
compliance during the recruitment process undertaken in
furtherance to the advertisement dated 20.06.2023.
41. The CET Rules, 2022 govern the conduct of the
Common Eligibility Test, which serves as a preliminary qualifying
examination for recruitment to various posts under Schedule I and
II. Rule 6 of the CET Rules, 2022 confers discretion upon the
recruiting agency to relax the qualifying marks for reserved
category candidates in the event that a sufficient number of
candidates (15 times the number of vacancies) do not qualify
under general standards. This relaxation is intended to ensure
adequate representation in the main examination.
42. The recruitment agency, while implementing the
reservation framework, devised application forms distinguishing
candidates under two broad headings:
(i) General Category candidates covered under vertical
reservation (SC/ST/OBC)
(ii) Special Category candidates under horizontal reservation
(ME category).
This bifurcation, being in line with the constitutional
provisions under Articles 16(1) and 16(4), and supported by the
Department of Personnel (DoP) Circular dated 24.06.2008,
appropriately accounted for both vertical and horizontal
reservations.
43. The grievance of the petitioners that ME category
candidates were permitted to appear in the main examination with
relaxed standards and later migrated to other reserved categories
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (46 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
such as SC/ST/OBC, thereby availing the benefit of double
reservation, is carefully examined. It is noted that neither the
advertisement nor the governing rules explicitly prohibit ME
category candidates from being considered under SC/ST/OBC
category, if they otherwise qualify on merit. In this context, such
consideration does not amount to migration or double reservation
but rather reflects the integration of horizontal reservation within
vertical categories, as recognized by constitutional jurisprudence.
44. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the authoritative
pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saurav Yadav &
Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(2021) 4 SCC 542],
wherein the principles governing the interplay of horizontal and
vertical reservations were clarified. Paras 36, 56, and 58 of the
said judgment categorically uphold the adjustment of horizontally
reserved candidates (such as women or ME category) against
vertical categories upon their qualifying on merit, without such
adjustment being treated as double reservation. The emphasized
paragraphs are reproduced herein below:
“36. Finally, we must say that the steps indicated by
the High Court of Gujarat in para 56 of its judgment in
Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai contemplate the correct
and appropriate procedure for considering and giving
effect to both vertical and horizontal reservations. The
illustration given by us deals with only one possible
dimension. There could be multiple such possibilities.
Even going by the present illustration, the first female
candidate allocated in the vertical column for Scheduled
Tribes may have secured higher position than the
candidate at Serial No.64. In that event said candidate
must be shifted from the category of Scheduled Tribes(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (47 of 58) [CW-278/2025]to Open / General category causing a resultant vacancy
in the vertical column of Scheduled Tribes. Such
vacancy must then ensure to the benefit of the
candidate in the Waiting List for Scheduled Tribes –
Female. The steps indicated by Gujarat High Court will
take care of every such possibility. It is true that the
exercise of laying down a procedure must necessarily
be left to the concerned authorities but we may
observe that one set out in said judgment will certainly
satisfy all claims and will not lead to any incongruity as
highlighted by us in the preceding paragraphs.
56. The judgments in Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of
UP, Swati Gupta Vs. State of UP and Jitendra Kumar
Singh Vs. State of UP, were decisions which arose from
recruitment cases concerning the state of UP. In fact in
Jitendra Kumar Singh, the court even considered the
question of validity of the horizontal reservations in
favour of women, as well as the Government Order of
26.2.1999. The latest in that series is a decision of this
court in Anupal Singh V. State of U.P, where the court
had to consider, as one of the contentions raised, the
question similar to the one which arises for
consideration in this case, i.e. whether social category
horizontal candidates can fill horizontal category
vacancies. The court recorded the facts and noticed the
contentions of the parties, in the following manner
(para 62):
“62. The contention of the private respondents
is that as per the statutory requirement, the
horizontal reserved vacancies were unfilled and
those unfilled vacancies of horizontal category
were filled by vertical reservation
candidates/other category candidates, which is
in violation of the statutory provisions vitiating
the selection process. On behalf of the U.P.(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (48 of 58) [CW-278/2025]Public Service Commission, Mr Shrish Kumar
Misra, learned counsel has furnished the details
as to the number of vacancies reserved for
horizontal category and the number of
candidates found suitable and placed in the
respective categories. The said details are as
under:
Category No. of Vacancies No. of selected
candidates
Women 1325 156
Dependents of 132 45
Freedom Fighters
Ex-Servicemen 330 NIL
Partially Blind 84 84
Partially deaf 84 57
One-arm 42 42
One-leg 42 42
On behalf of the U.P. Public Service
Commission, it was submitted that one of the
policies of the State Government regarding
horizontal reservation is that, if the suitable
candidates for filling the vacancies reserved for
such posts of horizontal reservation are not
available and the same are not carried forward;
they are filled up by other suitable candidates
from amongst the candidates belonging to
vertically reserved categories according to their
merit. It was submitted that unfilled horizontal
reservation vacancies were thus filled up by
suitable candidates of respective vertical
categories according to their merit which is as
per the policy of the Government. The High Court
was not right in finding fault with the filling up of
vacancies reserved for horizontal reservation
with other candidates of respective vertical(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (49 of 58) [CW-278/2025]reservation.” Thereafter the court recorded its
conclusions, in the following terms:
“84.6. The filling up of the unfilled horizontal
reservation by the candidates from the
respective vertical reservation is in accordance
with the policy of the Government and the same
cannot be faulted with.”
58. I would conclude by saying that reservations, both
vertical and horizontal, are method of ensuring
representation in public services. These are not to be
seen as rigid “slots”, where a candidate’s merit, which
otherwise entitles her to be shown in the open general
category, is foreclosed, as the consequence would be, if
the state’s argument is accepted. Doing so, would result
in a communal reservation, where each social category is
confined within the extent of their reservation, thus
negating merit. The open category is open to all, and the
only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit,
regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type is
available to her or him.”
45. Additionally, reliance is placed upon the ratio
encapsulated in Vikas Shankla (Supra) and paras 60 and 62
thereof, which further reinforce the legality of such procedural
integration, particularly when it facilitates the objectives of
inclusive representation and non-discrimination.
“60. Having regard to the respective submissions
noted above, first aspect that needs consideration is as
to whether relaxation in TET pass marks would amount
to concession in the recruitment process. The High
Court has held to be so on the premise that para 9(a)
dealing with such relaxation in TET marks forms part of
the document which relates to the recruitment(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (50 of 58) [CW-278/2025]procedure. It is difficult to accept this rationale or
analogy. Passing of TET examination is a condition of
eligibility for appointment as a teacher. It is a
necessary qualification without which a candidate is not
eligible to be considered for appointment. This was
clearly mentioned in guidelines/notification dated
February 11, 2011. These guidelines pertain to
conducting of TET. Basic features whereof have already
been pointed out above. Even para 9 which provides
for concessions that can be given to certain reserved
categories deals with ‘qualifying marks’ that is to be
obtained in TET examination. Thus, a person who
passes TET examination becomes eligible to participate
in the selection process as and when such selection
process for filling up of the posts of primary teachers is
to be undertaken by the State. On the other hand,
when it comes to recruitment of teachers, the method
for appointment of teachers is altogether different.
Here, merit list of successful candidates is to be
prepared on the basis of marks obtained under
different heads. One of the heads is marks in TET. So
far as this head is concerned, 20% of the marks
obtained in TET are to be assigned to each candidate.
Therefore, those reserved category candidates who
secured lesser marks in TET would naturally get less
marks under this head. We like to demonstrate it with
an example. Suppose a reserved category candidate
obtains 53 marks in TET, he is treated as having
qualified TET. However, when he is considered for
selection to the post of primary teacher, in respect of
allocation of marks he will get 20% marks for TET. As
against him, a general candidate who secures 70 marks
in TET shall be awarded 14 marks in recruitment
process. Thus, on the basis of TET marks reserved
category candidate has not got any advantage while
considering his candidature for the post. On the(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (51 of 58) [CW-278/2025]contrary, “level playing field” is maintained whereby a
person securing higher marks in TET, whether
belonging to general category or reserved category, is
allocated higher marks in respect of 20% of TET marks.
Thus, in recruitment process no weightage or
concession is given and allocation of 20% of TET marks
is applied across the board. Therefore, the High Court
is not correct in observing that concession was given in
the recruitment process on the basis of relaxation in
TET.
62. In Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. V. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors., this Court has very
categorically held that relaxations given in
educational qualifications etc. making a person
eligible to participate in selection process would
not be treated as availing benefits in the
recruitment/employment and the benefits
envisaged have to be those which have direct
relation to recruitment/employment and are
relatable to the jovial relationship of employer
and employee. It is also clarified that such benefits
must occur from and should be post ‘level playing field’.
We would like to reproduce the following discussion
from the said judgment touching upon the aforesaid
aspects:
“48. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the
considered opinion that the submissions of the
appellants that relaxation in fee or age would
deprive the candidates belonging to the reserved
category of an opportunity to compete against the
general category candidates is without any
foundation. It is to be noticed that the reserved
category candidates have not been given any
advantage in the selection process. All the
candidates had to appear in the same written test(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (52 of 58) [CW-278/2025]and face the same interview. It is therefore quite
apparent that the concession in fee and age
relaxation only enabled certain candidates belonging
to the reserved category to fall within the zone of
consideration. The concession in age did not in any
manner tilt the balance in favour of the reserved
category candidates, in the preparation of final
merit/select list.
49. It is permissible for the State in view of
Articles 14, 15, 16 and 38 of the Constitution of
India to make suitable provisions in law to
eradicate the disadvantages of candidates
belonging to socially and educationally
backward classes. Reservations are a mode to
achieve the equality of opportunity guaranteed
under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India.
Concessions and relaxations in fee or age
provided to the reserved category candidates
to enable them to compete and seek benefit of
reservation, is merely an aid to reservation.
The concessions and relaxations place the
candidates on a par with general category
candidates.
It is only thereafter the merit of the candidates is to
be determined without any further concessions in
favour of the reserved category candidates.xx xx xx
75. In our opinion, the relaxation in age does not in
any manner upset the “level playing field”. It is not
possible to accept the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellants that relaxation in age or
the concession in fee would in any manner be
infringement of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of
India. These concessions are provisions pertaining to(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (53 of 58) [CW-278/2025]the eligibility of a candidate to appear in the
competitive examination. At the time when the
concessions are availed, the open competition has
not commenced. It commences when all the
candidates who fulfill the eligibility conditions,
namely, qualifications, age, preliminary written test
and physical test are permitted to sit in the main
written examination. With age relaxation and the fee
concession, the reserved candidates are merely
brought within the zone of consideration, so that
they can participate in the open competition on
merit. Once the candidate participates in the written
examination, it is immaterial as to which category,
the candidate belongs. All the candidates to be
declared eligible had participated in the preliminary
test as also in the physical test. It is only thereafter
that successful candidates have been permitted to
participate in the open competition.” It is stated at
the cost of repetition that provision of giving 20%
marks of TET score was applied to all candidates
irrespective of the category to which he/she belongs
and, therefore, no concession or relaxation or
advantage or benefit was given in this behalf which
could disturb the level playing field and tilt advantage
in respect of reserved category candidate. On the
contrary, the reserved category candidates who had
secured less marks in TET examination are given
lesser marks in the recruitment process on the
application of the formula of allocating 20% marks of
TET score. Question No. 3 is answered accordingly.
63. These appeals are accordingly allowed in the
manner indicated in this judgment, effect whereof would
be as under:
(a) Those reserved category candidates who secured
pass marks on the application of relaxed standards as(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (54 of 58) [CW-278/2025]contained in the extant policy of the Government in its
communication dated March 23, 2011 to be treated as
having qualified TET examination and, thus, eligible to
participate in the selection undertaken by the State
Government.
(b) Migration from reserved category to general
category shall be admissible to those reserved
category candidates who secured more marks
obtained by the last unreserved category
candidates who are selected, subject to the
condition that such reserved category candidates
did not avail any other special concession. It is
clarified that concession of passing marks in TET
would not be treated as concession falling in the
aforesaid category.”
(emphasis supplied)
46. Significantly, the petitioners herein have neither
challenged the format of the application form nor the validity of
the DoP Circular dated 24.06.2008. Moreover, none of the
petitioners in the given case has secured higher marks than the
cut-off in their vertical reservation and have filed the present
petitions after being unsuccessful in their respective categories, to
extract an extra leverage. Therefore, their challenge is not
maintainable on procedural or constitutional grounds. Moreover, it
is unambiguous that the marks scored by a candidate in the
competitive exam for Junior Accountant or Tehsil Revenue
Accountant are used to determine the merit which is drawn under
a complex process of selection whereas the CET exam can be
applied multiple times and there is no bar on the number of
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (55 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
attempts, thus leaving no iota of doubt that it is not a part of the
selection process.
47. Nevertheless, in the advertisement dated 20.06.2023,
the respondent-Board has considered ME category as a separate
class and has kept them in the category of horizontal reservation.
The relevant extract from the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
“3- dfu’B ys[kkdkj ds fjDr inksa dk oxZokj vkj{k.k fuEu izdkj gS%&
¼d½xSj&vuqlwfpr {ks=dqy lkekU; vuqlwfpr tkfr vuqlwfpr vU; fiNM+k oxZ vfr fiNM+k oxZ vkfFkZd :i ls ckjka ftys dh
in tutkfr detksj oxZ lgfj;k tutkfr
lke lk fo/k if lk lk fo if l lk fo if l lk fo if l lk fo if l lk fo if lk lk fo if
kU; ekU ok jR ekU ekU /k jR ke ekU /k jR ke ekU /k jR ke ekU /k jR ke ekU /k jR ekU ekU /k jR
; ; ; ; ok ; kU ; ok ; kU ; ok ; kU ; ok ; kU ; ok ; ; ; ok ;
efg D efg D ; efg D ; efg D ; efg D ; efg D efg D
yk rk yk rk yk rk yk rk yk rk yk rk yk rk
4911 1242 355 141 35 545 156 62 15 40 117 46 11 71 205 81 20 17 49 20 4 34 99 39 9 17 5 1
9 4 1 3
{kSfrt vkj{k.k (HORIZONTAL RESERVATION)
fnO;kaxtu ea=kyf;d HkwriwoZ lSfud mRd`”V
deZpkjh f[kykM+h
(OA, BA, 12.5%
OL, BL, ASD,
LV D, HH OAL, CP, M.I., UR EWS MBC OBC SC ST TOTAL
LC, DW, S.L.D.
AAV)
49 49 49 49 613 221 61 30 127 97 72 608 98
¼[k½ vuqlwfpr {ks=
dqy in lkekU; vuqlwfpr tkfr vuqlwfpr tutkfr
lkekU; lkekU; fo/kok ifjR;Drk lkekU; lkekU; fo/kok ifjR;Drk lkekU; lkekU; fo/kok ifjR;Drk
efgyk efgyk efgyk
279 99 29 11 02 10 02 01 00 88 25 10 02{kSfrt vkj{k.k (HORIZONTAL RESERVATION)
fnO;kaxtu ea=kyf;d HkwriwoZ lSfud mRd`”V
deZpkjh f[kykM+h
12.5%
LV D, HH (OA, BA, ASD, M.I.,
OL, BL, S.L.D.
OAL, CP, UR SC ST TOTAL
LC, DW,
AAV)
03 03 03 03 34 17 01 15 33 054- rglhy jktLo ys[kkdkj ds fjDr inksa dk oxZokj vkj{k.k fuEu izdkj gS%&
¼d½xSj&vuqlwfpr {ks=
dq lkekU; vuqlwfpr tkfr vuqlwfpr vU; fiNM+k oxZ vfr fiNM+k oxZ vkfFkZd :i ls ckjka ftys dh
y tutkfr detksj oxZ lgfj;k
in tutkfr
l lk fo ifj l lk fo ifj l lk fo ifj l lk fo ifj l lk fo ifj l lk fo if lk lk f if(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (56 of 58) [CW-278/2025]ke ekU /k R;D ke ekU /k R;D ke ekU /k R;D ke ekU /k R;D ke ekU /k R;D ke ekU /k jR ek ekU o jR
kU ; ok rk kU ; ok rk kU ; ok rk kU ; ok rk kU ; ok rk kU ; ok ; U; ; /k ;
; efg ; efg ; efg ; efg ; efg ; efg D efg o D
yk yk yk yk yk yk rk yk k rk
170 43 13 04 1 19 06 2 0 14 05 1 0 25 8 2 0 6 2 0 0 12 04 1 0 2 0 0 0
{kSfrt vkj{k.k (HORIZONTAL RESERVATION)
fnO;kaxtu ea=kyf;d HkwriwoZ lSfud mRd`”V
deZpkjh f[kykM+h
B/LV HI LD/CP MI/MD UR EWS MBC OBC SC ST TOTAL
02 02 02 01 21 9 2 1 4 3 2 21 03¼[k½ vuqlwfpr {ks=
dqy in lkekU; vuqlwfpr tkfr vuqlwfpr tutkfr
lkekU; lkekU; fo/kok ifjR;Drk lkekU; lkekU; fo/kok ifjR;Drk lkekU; lkekU; fo/kok ifjR;Drk
efgyk efgyk efgyk
28 10 03 01 00 01 00 00 00 09 03 01 00{kSfrt vkj{k.k (HORIZONTAL RESERVATION)
fnO;kaxtu ea=kyf;d HkwriwoZ lSfud mRd`”V
deZpkjh f[kykM+h
12.5%
B/LV HI LD/CP MI/MD UR SC ST TOTAL01 00 00 00 03 02 – 01 03 00
uksV%&
1- vuqlwfpr {ks= ds mDr fjDr inksa ds fy;s dsoy jktLFkku jkT; ds vuqlwfpr
{ks= ds LFkkuh; fuoklh gh vkosnu dj ldsaxsA vuqlwfpr {ks= ds vkosnd
vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa vuqlwfpr {ks= ds dkWye esa Li”V :i ls vadu djsaA
vuqlwfpr {ks= ds dkWye esa vadu ugha djus dh fLFkfr esa muds vkosnu ij
vuqlwfpr {ks= ds inksa ds fy;s fopkj ugh fd;k tk;sxkA
2- xSj vuqlwfpr {ks= dh fjfDr;ksa ds fo:) vuqlwfpr {ks= ds fuoklh Hkh
vkosnu dj ldsaxsA ;fn vH;FkhZ dk p;u vuqlwfpr {ks= ,oa xSj vuqlwfpr
{ks= nksuksa esa gksrk gS rks vH;FkhZ dks nLrkost lR;kiu ds le; viuk fyf[kr
esa fodYi izLrqr djuk gksxk fd og vuqlwfpr {ks= ,oa xSj vuqlwfpr {ks=
nksuksa esa ls fdl {ks= esa viuk p;u pkgrk gS rFkk fdl {ks= ds vius p;u
dks fujLr djokuk pkgrk gSA fodYi izLrqr ugha djus dh fLFkfr esa vH;FkhZ
dk vafre p;u vuqlwfpr {ks= esa ekuk tkosxkA
3- efgyk] HkwriwoZ lSufdksa] mRd`”V f[kykM+h ,oa fnO;kaxtuksa ds fy, vkjf{kr inksa
dk vkj{k.k n.Mor (HORIZONTAL) ls gksxkA(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (57 of 58) [CW-278/2025]4- foKkiu tkjh gksus ds mijkUr foKkfir inksa dh la[;k esa deh ;k c<+ksrjh
dh tk ldrh gS ,oa vkj{k.k laca/kh izko/kkuksa ds laca/k esa jkT; ljdkj ds
uohure fu;eksa ds vuqlkj ifjorZu fd;k tk ldsxkA ”
CONCLUSION:
48. In summation of the aforementioned, it can be noted
that as per the governing statute (CET Rules) the recruiting
agency was bound to call fifteen times candidates of the
advertised seats, which specifically provides that the examination
was merely to make the candidates appeared therein ‘eligible’ for
applying to the posts advertised in the competitive examinations.
Therefore, since fifteen times candidates were not available for the
posts of Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant, the
candidates were ‘made eligible’ to fill the application forms for the
competitive examination. Nonetheless, the petitioners are also the
candidates having lesser marks than the cut-off and are still ‘made
eligible’ to appear in the mains examination, in adherence of the
governing statute; that the Rule 6 read with Rule 7 of the Rules of
1963 further categorically states that 12.5% of the advertised
posts shall be filled by the ME category candidates; that the
respondents have also made the fact qua the reservation policy
unambiguous in the advertisement itself.
49. In view of the above analysis and the well-settled legal
principles governing horizontal and vertical reservations, this
Court finds no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners.
The recruitment agency has acted within the bounds of statutory
provisions, administrative guidelines, and constitutional mandate.
The relaxation of standards for ME category candidates under Rule
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16562] (58 of 58) [CW-278/2025]
6 of the CET Rules, 2022, the integration of horizontal
reservations with vertical categories, and the calling of eligible
candidates for document verification pursuant to the order dated
27.06.2024, do not suffer from any legal infirmity.
50. Accordingly, the present batch of petitions being bereft
of any merits stand dismissed. The result dated 17.12.2024 is not
liable to be quashed or interfered with. No orders are passed as to
costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Pooja /495-503,505-512, 570-571, 573, 584-585 and 401 (17.03.2025)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2025 at 09:57:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)