Dismissed¶6

Pavan Kumar Mali and Ors. v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC10 Mar 2025CW/16825/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan HC Jaipur, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16825/2012, Pavan Kumar Mali v. State of Raj, decided 10/03/2025 by Sameer Jain, J. LDC recruitment 2011; selection concluded, appointments made, fresh subsequent recruitment done, no vacant posts; waiting/reserved list lapses after six months; no belated judicial interference; identical lis pre-adjudicated in Om Prakash Ghiya, SBCWP No. 2706/2000 (13.02.2025); relied on (2010) 6 SCC 777, (2009) 2 SCC 706, (2006) 8 SCC 686, (2013) 12 SCC 243 and Rajasthan DoP circulars 19.07.2001 and 13.01.2016. Petition dismissed; liberty retained to pursue legal recourse.

What did the court decide?

None; petitioners remain at liberty to take appropriate legal recourse if facts are otherwise, and pending applications stand disposed of. ¶6

Pavan Kumar Mali and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; petitioners remain at liberty to take appropriate legal recourse if facts are otherwise, and pending applications stand disposed of.

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, who applied for the post of LDC under the 2011 recruitment/advertisement, are entitled to appointment or any other relief, given that the impugned selection process has concluded with all consequential appointments made, a subsequent fresh recruitment has been completed, and no vacant seats/posts remain. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

Placing reliance upon State of Orissa & Anr. v. Raj Kishore Nanda (2010) 6 SCC 777, Girdhar Kumar Dadhich v. State of Rajasthan (2009) 2 SCC 706, Union of India v. B. Valluvan (2006) 8 SCC 686, Raj Rishi Mehra v. State of Punjab (2013) 12 SCC 243, and the Rajasthan Department of Personnel circulars dated 19.07.2001 (No. F.7(2)/DOP/A-2/81 Pt.) and dated 13.01.2016, the Court held that qua the selection process for any public service examination the waiting/reserved list lapses six months from issuance, and where appointments are already made, no judicial interference can be made at a belated stage.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to refute the respondents' contentions or to substantiate the availability of seats or survival of the lis in hand.

¶4

Key takeaways

The ratio passed in Om Prakash Ghiya (supra) shall be treated as a part and parcel of the present judgment, and in its light the present petition is dismissed.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) [Sameer Jain, J.], 10/03/2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16825/2012 — Pavan Kumar Mali & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Anr.: Petitioners had applied for the post of LDC under a 2011 advertisement/selection/recruitment process. By the date of judgment, that selection process stood completed with all consequential appointments made, a subsequent fresh recruitment had also been initiated and culminated, and no vacant seats/posts remained. Respondents pointed out that the identical lis was already adjudicated vide judgment dated 13.02.2025 in SBCWP No. 2706/2000 (Om Prakash Ghiya v. State of Raj. & Ors.). Counsel for petitioners could not refute these contentions or substantiate availability of seats/survival of the lis. Relying on State of Orissa v. Raj Kishore Nanda (2010) 6 SCC 777; Girdhar Kumar Dadhich v. State of Rajasthan (2009) 2 SCC 706; Union of India v. B. Valluvan (2006) 8 SCC 686; Raj Rishi Mehra v. State of Punjab (2013) 12 SCC 243; and Rajasthan DoP circulars dated 19.07.2001 (No. F.7(2)/DOP/A-2/81 Pt.) and 13.01.2016 — under which the waiting/reserved list lapses six months from issuance and no judicial interference is warranted at a belated stage once appointments are made — the Court DISMISSED the petition, treating the Om Prakash Ghiya ratio as part and parcel of the judgment, while leaving petitioners at liberty to pursue appropriate legal recourse if facts are otherwise.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:11533]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16825/2012

¶4

Pavan Kumar Mali And Ors

----Petitioners

Versus

State Of Raj And Anr

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. F. Baig

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶11

Judgment

¶12

10/03/2025

¶13

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 2011 wherein the petitioner(s) has/have applied for the post of LDC.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

[2025:RJ-JP:11533]

[CW-16825/2012]

(2 of 2)

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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. Additionally, petitioner(s) will be at liberty to take appropriate legal recourse, if facts are otherwise. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶22

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶23

Pooja /106

Pavan Kumar Mali and Ors. v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavan Kumar Mali and Ors. v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Kumar Hindka Vs U O I Staff Selection Commi Anr.

Sultan Gurjar Vs State Education Departmentors

Devendra Kumar Vs Staff Selection Commission

Kasam Ali Vs State Education Departmentors

Smt Sita and Anr. Vs R S R T C and Anr.

Sunita Saini Vs State Education Departmentors