Dismissed¶22

Priyanka Choudhary v. State Home Departmentors

Rajasthan HC19 Feb 2025CW/13215/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13215/2013; Priyanka Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan; Constable (GD) 2012 recruitment; waiting list / reserved list lapses after six months; no belated judicial interference once appointments made; no vacant posts; Om Prakash Ghiya SBCWP 2706/2000 (13.02.2025); Raj Kishore Nanda (2010) 6 SCC 777; Girdhar Kumar Dadhich (2009) 2 SCC 706; B. Valluvan (2006) 8 SCC 686; Raj Rishi Mehra (2013) 12 SCC 243; Rajasthan DoP circulars F.7(2)/DOP/A-2/81 Pt. (19.07.2001) and 13.01.2016; petition dismissed 19/02/2025 by Justice Sameer Jain.

What did the court decide?

Qua the selection process for any public service examination, the waiting/reserved list lapses after a span of six months from the date of its issuance. ¶21

Priyanka Choudhary Vs State Home Departmentors — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:8338]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13215/2013

¶4

Priyanka Choudhary D/o Shri Shivpal Durdak, Village Suliyawas, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar Roll No. 36119727

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan Through Director General Of Police, State Of Rajasthan, H.q. Jaipur

¶8

Inspector General Of Police H.q., Jaipur 3. Superintendent Of Police, Pali

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sanjay Mehla with
	Ms. Sunita Mehla
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma,AAG

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶12

Judgment

¶13

19/02/2025

¶14

At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that the present petition is filed assailing an/a advertisement/selection/recruitment process initiated in the year 2012 wherein the petitioner(s) has/have applied for the post of Constable (GD).

¶15

Subsequently, it is apprised that ever since issuance of the said advertisement/recruitment process much water has flown and as on date the impugned selection process is already over with all its consequential appointments being granted/made. Nevertheless, a subsequent fresh advertisement/selection process was also initiated and culminated. Thence, it can be deduced that as on date, no vacant seats/posts are available.

¶16

Lastly, it is apprised that the present lis /identical lis is no more res integra and is already adjudicated vide judgment dated

(2 of 2)

[2025:RJ-JP:8338]

[CW-13215/2013]

13.02.2025 passed in SBCWP No. 2706/2000 titled as Om Prakash Ghiya Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Therefore, the said ratio can be made applicable to the present petition also.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) is unable to refute the aforementioned contentions or substantiate the availability of seats/ survival of the lis in hand. 5. In pursuance of the contentions noted insofar, this Court deems it apposite to place reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in State of Orissa & Anr. v. Raj Kishore Nanda & Ors. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777, Girdhar Kumar Dadhich Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2009) 2 SCC 706, Union of India v. B. Valluvan reported in (2006) 8 SCC 686 and Raj Rishi Mehra & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 243 , and the circulars issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel dated 19.07.2001 bearing No. F.7(2)/DOP/A-2/81 Pt. and Øekad i-7 ¼2½ dkfeZd@d&2@81 ikVZ dated 13.01.2016 passed by jktLFkku ljdkj dkfeZd ¼d&2½ foHkkx, whereby it is made unambiguous that qua the selection process for any public service examination, the waiting/reserved list lapses after a span of six months from the date of its issuance, and if appointments are already made, then no judicial interference can be made at a belated stage.

¶22

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in light of ratio passed in Om Prakash Ghiya (supra) which shall be treated as a part and parcel of the present judgment. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶23

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶24

Pooja /72

Priyanka Choudhary v. State Home Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Choudhary v. State Home Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gangaram Son of Shri Tundaram Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Rinku Kumar Son of Ganga Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Manoj Tanwar Vs State of Raj Home and Ors.

Ms Swati Sharma Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Dr. Roshni Belani D/O Vasudev Belani Vs State of Rajasthan

Rohitash Kumar Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Anr.