Rakesh Kumar Sain Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rakesh Kumar Sain Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who applied in the 2008 selection for Sanskrit Teacher Gr. II, is entitled to any relief when that selection process stands concluded with consequential appointments made, a subsequent fresh selection has culminated, and no vacant seats/posts remain. +1 more

Court's answer

The identical lis stood adjudicated in Om Prakash Ghiya (SBCWP No. 2706/2000, decided 13.02.2025); that ratio was made applicable to, and treated as part and parcel of, this judgment, and on that basis the present petition was dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

The Court found the contentions unrebutted and placed reliance on the ratios in State of Orissa v. Raj Kishore Nanda, Girdhar Kumar Dadhich, Union of India v. B. Valluvan and Raj Rishi Mehra, together with the Rajasthan Department of Personnel circulars dated 19.07.2001 and 13.01.2016.

Key takeaways

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; where appointments have already been made, no judicial interference can be made at a belated stage.ratio¶21
Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to refute the respondents' contentions or substantiate the availability of seats or survival of the lis in hand.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench (Sameer Jain, J.), 03/03/2025 — S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5532/2011 (Rakesh Kumar Sain v. State of Raj. & Anr.) DISMISSED. The petition challenged the 2008 advertisement/selection/recruitment process for the post of Sanskrit Teacher Gr. II; by then the selection had concluded with consequential appointments made, a fresh selection process had been initiated and culminated, and no vacant seats/posts remained. Placing reliance 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 and Raj Rishi Mehra v. State of Punjab (2013) 12 SCC 243, and on Rajasthan Department of Personnel 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 lies at a belated stage once appointments are made — and applying its own recent ratio in Om Prakash Ghiya v. State of Raj. (SBCWP No. 2706/2000, decided 13.02.2025) as part and parcel of the judgment, the Court dismissed the petition; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

[2025:RJ-JP:9934]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5532/2011

Rakesh Kumar Sain

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Raj And Anr

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanmay Dhand For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. S. Chhaba, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment

03/03/2025

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 2008 wherein the petitioner(s) has/have applied for the post of Sanskrit Teacher Gr. II.

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.

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

(2 of 2)

[2025:RJ-JP:9934]

[CW-5532/2011]

Prakash Ghiya Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Therefore, the said ratio can be made applicable to the present petition also.

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.

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.

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.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

Pooja /68