Multiple writ petitions were filed seeking to appear for practical and physical tests by candidates who secured minimum qualifying marks but were not shortlisted under the 10 times category-wise limit. The petitions were dismissed in default due to non-appearance.
All writ petitions dismissed in default; stay orders vacated.
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.
[2023/RJJP/004182]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1428/2023
Vikram Singh Meena S/o Shri Bholaram Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Meeno Ki Dhani , Bad Ke Balaji , Gram Panchayat Thikariya Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19587/2022
Navdeep Pathak S/o Mahesh Pathak
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 235/2023
Chandan Meena S/o Shri Babulal Meena
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 291/2023
Manish Gurjar S/o Shri Jagdish Gurjar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 328/2023
Manjeet Kumar Son Of Shri Trilok Chand Bugaliya
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
(2 of 14)
[2023/RJJP/004182]
[CW-1428/2023]
| S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 335/2023 | |
|---|---|
| Gopal Lal Verma Son Of Shri Radheyshyam Verma Versus |
----Petitioner |
| State Of Rajasthan -- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 371/2023 |
--Respondent |
| Bhola Ram S/o Shri Rajender Singh Versus |
----Petitioner |
| Rajasthan Staff Selection Board -- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 415/2023 |
--Respondent |
| Ramprasad Banjara S/o Shri Ladu Ram Banjara | ----Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| The State Of Rajasthan -- |
--Respondent |
| S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 431/2023 | |
| Chhail Biharee Sahariya Son Of Shri Mahesh Kumar Versus |
Sahariya ----Petitioner |
| State Of Rajasthan -- |
--Respondent |
| S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1018/2023 | |
| Deepak Sahu S/o Shri Puran Mal Sahu | ----Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| State Of Rajasthan -- |
--Respondent |
| S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1020/2023 | |
| Tanuja Ghasal Daughter Of Shri Shankar Lal Ghasal Versus |
----Petitioner |
| State Of Rajasthan -- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1073/2023 |
--Respondent |
| Govind Sharma Son Of Shri Shankar Lal Sharma Versus |
----Petitioner |
[2023/RJJP/004182]
[CW-1428/2023]
[2023/RJJP/004182] (3 of 14) [CW-1428/2023] State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1224/2023 Kapil Kumar Avasthi Son Of Shri Siyaram Avasthi ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1258/2023 Manish Kumar S/o Shri Prabhoo Ram ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1324/2023 Sandeep Meena S/o Shri Mahesh Chand Meena ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1397/2023 Tanu Reniwal S/o Kishan Snehi ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1400/2023 Bheem Singh Gurjar Son Of Shri Mohan Lal Gurjar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1454/2023 Vishnu Khatana Son Of Shri Balli Singh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1491/2023 Syed Juned Ali S/o Syed Liyaqat Ali
(4 of 14)
[2023/RJJP/004182]
[CW-1428/2023]
----Petitioner
Versus The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
| S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1519/2023 | |
|---|---|
| Kailash Jat S/o Bheevaram Jat Versus The State Of Rajasthan -- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1556/2023 Nand Lal Meena S/o Shri Ramji Lal Meena Versus The State Of Rajasthan -- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1582/2023 Anand Kumar Son Of Shri Shitoli Ram Versus |
----Petitioner --Respondent ----Petitioner --Respondent ----Petitioner |
| State Of Rajasthan -- |
--Respondent |
| S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1700/2023 | |
| Shailendra Nawal S/o Jagdish Chand Nawal Versus |
----Petitioner |
| The State Of Rajasthan -- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1723/2023 |
--Respondent |
| Raghuveer Singh Jatav Son Of Shri Ramji Lal Jatav Versus |
----Petitioner |
| Rajasthan Staff Selection Board -- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1773/2023 |
--Respondent |
| Virendra Singh S/o Ram Kunwar Singh Versus |
----Petitioner |
| The State Of Rajasthan | |
| -- | --Respondent |
(5 of 14)
[2023/RJJP/004182]
[CW-1428/2023]
| S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1802/2023 |
|---|
| Devendra Menaria Son Of Shri Prem Shankar Menaria ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1819/2023 Ashok Kumar Saini Son Of Shri Fateh Chand Saini ----Petitioner Versus |
| State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1835/2023 |
| Rajaram Gurjar Son Of Shri Heeralal Gurjar ----Petitioner |
| Versus |
| The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1869/2023 |
| Manoj Kumar Verma S/o Sitaram Danodiya ----Petitioner Versus |
| The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1872/2023 |
| Praveen Chaudhary S/o Shri Shyamveer Singh ----Petitioner |
| Versus |
| State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1878/2023 |
| Ankesh Choudhary S/o Dinesh Choudhary ----Petitioner |
| Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1926/2023 |
| Rajpal Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh ----Petitioner Versus |
(6 of 14)
[2023/RJJP/004182]
[CW-1428/2023]
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1942/2023 Maneesh Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Soran Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1983/2023 Rakesh Mina S/o Kanhaiya Lal Mina
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2011/2023
Rakesh Kumar Son Of Shri Surendra Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2024/2023 Rohit Nitharwal S/o Budhiprakash
----Petitioner
Versus Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2042/2023
Babita Meena D/o Bhabbad Ram Meena
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2049/2023
Vijendra Kumar Tomar Son Of Shri Kajod Mal Gurjar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2103/2023 Omprakash Sharma S/o Bhudev Sharma
(7 of 14)
[2023/RJJP/004182]
[CW-1428/2023]
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2129/2023 Ajay Kumar Dewat Son Of Shri Jagdish Prasad
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2163/2023
Satywan S/o Shri Prabhati Ram
----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2178/2023 Sourabh Kumar Son Of Shri Bhagwan Sahay ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2181/2023 Mukesh Kumar Balai Son Of Shri Kailash Chandra Balai ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2217/2023 Rashmi Siwal Daughter Of Shri Rajendra Singh, Wife Of Shri Arun Kumar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2263/2023 Shahbaz Akhtar Son Of Abdul Mustafa ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan
(8 of 14)
[2023/RJJP/004182]
[CW-1428/2023]
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2266/2023 Suresh Kumar S/o Mohan Lal
----Petitioner
Versus The State Of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2466/2023 Fauji Singh Dabariya S/o Banwari Lal Dabariya Versus The State Of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2468/2023 Neeraj Kumar Phoolwari S/o Jagdish Prasad Phoolwari Versus State Of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2485/2023 Vaseem Akram S/o Abdul Qayyum Khan Versus The State Of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2487/2023 Pankaj Kumar Son Of Shri Sumer Singh Versus State Of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2532/2023 Rajat Verma S/o Shri Khanga Ram Bunkar Versus
----Respondent
----Petitioner
----Respondent ----Petitioner ----Respondent ----Petitioner ----Respondent ----Petitioner ----Respondent ----Petitioner
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2605/2023 Kirti Khatri W/o Prabhat Khatri
----Petitioner
(9 of 14)
[2023/RJJP/004182]
[CW-1428/2023]
| Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2643/2023 Dinesh Paliwal S/o Shri Shayam Prakash Paliwal ----Petitioner Versus The Chairman Rajasthan Staff Selection Board ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2653/2023 |
|---|
| Bagan Singh Son Of Shri Rajveer Singh ----Petitioner |
| Versus |
| State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent |
| S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2656/2023 Sher Singh Meena Son Of Shri Samrth Lal Meena ----Petitioner Versus |
| State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2692/2023 Abdul Shahid Son Of Shri Abdul Salim ----Petitioner Versus |
| State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2697/2023 |
| Om Prakash Son Of Shri Dharam Pal ----Petitioner Versus |
| State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2712/2023 Rohitash Kumar Son Of Shri Padam Singh ----Petitioner Versus |
| State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent |
(10 of 14)
[2023/RJJP/004182]
[CW-1428/2023]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2715/2023
Vinod Kumar Meena S/o Kalu Ram Meena
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : None present |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG assisted by Mr. Yashodhar Pandey |
| Mr. Surendra Med for RSSB | |
| Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mathur, OIC, ACP | |
| (Dy. Director) RSSB |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
14/03/2023
At the outset, it may be noticed that advocates’ have taken a call to remain absent from judicial work and to not appear in Courts from 20.02.2023 onwards and today also no advocate(s) on behalf of the petitioners have put in appearance. None of the petitioners is present in person.
Mr. Anil Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, has pointed out that the grievances of petitioners, are of similar nature in these writ petitions that they have not been shortlisted for practical and physical test, despite securing the minimum qualifying marks in the written examination for the post of Assistant Fire Officer/Fireman, pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.08.2021 and amended advertisement dated 05.10.2021, therefore,
[2023/RJJP/004182]
[CW-1428/2023]
(11 of 14)
petitioners have prayed to allow them to appear for the practical and physical test.
Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that after issuance of advertisement dated 10.08.2021, an amended advertisement was issued on 05.10.2021. As per notification dated 05.10.2021 (Annexure R/2) whereby and whereunder Rule 21 of the Rules of 1963 has been amended in following terms:-
“Amendment of Rule 21- In sub-rule (2) of rule 21 of the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963, for the existing expression “Those candidates who fails to secure minimum of 33% marks and in case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe minimum of 28% in written examination shall not be allowed to participate in practical test and physical test and physical test and final merit shall be prepared”, the expression “Out of those candidates, who secure minimum of 33% marks and in case of candidates belonging to Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe minimum of 28% in written examination, ten time candidates category wise of advertised vacancies shall be allowed to participate in practical test and physical test however all those candidate who secure the same marks will also be allowed to participate in practical test and physical test and final merit shall be prepared” shall be substituted.”
Learned Additional Advocate General submits that according to the amended Rule 21(2) of the Rules of 1963 and amended advertisement dated 05.10.2021, in the present recruitment process for the post of Assistant Fire Officer/Fireman, candidates were required to secure minimum qualifying marks of 33% and in case of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, 28% in the written examination. Thereafter, out of the candidates who have secured minimum qualifying marks in the written examination, only ten times candidates category-wise of the advertised vacancies, are
(12 of 14)
[2023/RJJP/004182]
[CW-1428/2023]
required to be summoned for the practical and physical test. He submits that the contention of petitioners that each and every candidates, who have secured minimum qualifying marks of 33% or 28%, as the case may be, is eligible to appear for the practical and physical test, is misconceived and contrary to the terms of advertisement as well as Rule 21(2) of the Rules of 1963 and since petitioners do not fall within ten times candidates of their respective category, as such the petitioners have no case on merits.
Learned Additional Advocate General has also pointed out that the applicability of notification dated 05.10.2021, promulgating the amendment in Rule 21 of Rules of 1963, to the present recruitment of Assistant Fire Officer/Fireman pursuant to advertisement dated 10.08.2021, was put to challenge before the Division Bench of this Court, by way of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19199/2022 (Anoop Yadav v. State of Rajasthan) & other connected matters. The Division Bench has dismissed the writ petitions vide order dated 02.02.2023 affirming the applicability of notification dated 05.10.2021 to the present recruitment with observation that since, the candidates have participated in the recruitment process pursuant to amended advertisement dated 05.10.2021 and have accepted the terms and conditions of the notification dated 05.10.2021 as also have taken a chance of success and failure, therefore, they are estopped from challenging the notification and the terms and conditions of the advertisement.
(13 of 14)
[2023/RJJP/004182]
[CW-1428/2023]
Learned Additional Advocate General has also pointed out that the selection process for the post of Assistant Fire Officer/Fireman has already been completed. Learned counsel has prayed to dismiss all the writ petitions as also to vacate the interim stay order, if any.
Having heard learned Additional Advocate General and from perusal of the material available on record, it is not indispute that the direct recruitment for the post of Assistant Fire Officer/Fireman, is to be made under the procedure and scheme enumerated in the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963. Rule 21 of Rules of 1963 has been amended vide notification dated 05.10.2021 as extracted hereinabove and as per amended rule, amended advertisement dated 05.10.2021 had also been issued prior to the recruitment process. As far as applicability of Rule 21(2) of Rules of 1963, promulgated vide notification dated 05.10.2021 to the present recruitment, the issue has already been decided and stands at rest by the judgment dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Division Bench in the case of Anoop Yadav (supra) and other connected matters.
It is not case of any of the petitioners that despite falling within ten times candidates of their respective category, he/she was not shortlisted/summoned to appear for practical and physical test, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that merely on account of fact that petitioners have secured minimum qualifying marks of 33% or 28%, as the case may be, in the written examination, they cannot claim to appear in the practical and physical test as of
(14 of 14)
[2023/RJJP/004182]
[CW-1428/2023]
right in view of the Rule 21(2) of Rules of 1963 and as per amended advertisement dated 05.10.2021.
Taking note of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that petitioners have lost interest in pursuing the writ petitions on merits and since none of petitioners have put in appearance, therefore, all the writ petitions are dismissed in default and for non prosecution.
Stay order, if any, passed in the writ petitions stand vacated and all the stay applications are dismissed.
A copy of this order be placed in each and every connected matter.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
RAJAT/93-151
1 issue framed by the court
Whether candidates who secured minimum qualifying marks in the written examination are automatically entitled to appear for the practical and physical test without being selected through cut-off calcu
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anoop Yadav v. State of RajasthanExplained¶148
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19199/2022 (Anoop Yadav v. State of Rajasthan)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vikram Singh Meena
Navdeep Pathak
Chandan Meena
Manish Gurjar
Manjeet Kumar
State Of Rajasthan
Sudeesh Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
