High Court reviewed its own order in Bamboriya case, correcting a factual error about reservation clauses in Rajasthan recruitment rules.
Previous judgment recalled on factual error; writ petition relisted for hearing on 03/02/2021.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 11/2021
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order
22/01/2021
(2 of 3)
[WRW-11/2021]
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3256/2020-Jitendra Singh Bamboriya Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors.
has observed as under:-
“15.The RPSC in its written submissions has also pointed out that1:3 number of candidates have been called. Thus, for 39 posts,119 candidates have been called. Thus, 119 candidates would cover all the categories. It is not case of the petitioners that any particular category stands unrepresented. On the other hand, the only submission raised before this Court is that the candidates from OBC category having higher merit may be left out which is wholly fallacious as the RPSC is declaring the result on 1:3 basis with relation to overall marks without going into declaring in the ratio of 1:3 in each category. Since the word 'each category' is not available in the rules, no mandamus or direction can be issued to the RPSC to declare the result each categorywise. The RAS and Allied Services Examinations are conducted under The Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1999 which provide for declaration of result of preliminary examination in each category in the ratio of 1:3. Such provision is not available under the Rules of 1978. A rule imbibed in a particular set of rules cannot be imposed on another set of rules where it is absent. In view therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is not found to be having force. The judgments cited at bar by learned counsel for the petitioners, as noted above, would have no application to the present case as the facts of the present case are different from those as cited in Indra Sawhney (supra), Rajesh Daria (supra) and Anil Kumar Gupta (supra).”
(3 of 3)
[WRW-11/2021]
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
NAVAL KISHOR /71
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the judgment in Civil Writ Petition No.3256/2020 was based on a factual error regarding the reservation clause in the 1999 Rules.
Whether the review petition warrants recalling the previous judgment on factual grounds.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary
Bhanwar Lal Choudhary
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
