Kasam Ali Vs State Education Departmentors — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Kasam Ali Vs State Education Departmentors — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief. Petitioner left at liberty to take appropriate legal recourse, if facts are otherwise; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who applied under the 2010 advertisement/selection/recruitment process for the post of Madarsa Shiksha Sahyogi, is entitled to relief when the selection process has concluded with consequential appointments made, a subsequent fresh recruitment has culminated leaving no vacant seats, and the challenge is belated (survival of the lis).

Court's answer

In respect of selection processes for any public service examination, the waiting/reserved list lapses after a span of six months from the date of its issuance, as reflected in the Supreme Court precedents relied upon and the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel circulars dated 19.07.2001 and 13.01.2016.

Ratio / Principle

Where appointments under the selection process have already been made, no judicial interference can be made at a belated stage.

Key takeaways

The lis is no longer res integra, being already adjudicated in Om Prakash Ghiya (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2706/2000, decided 13.02.2025), whose ratio is applicable to the present petition and is treated as part and parcel of this judgment.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench (Single Bench, Sameer Jain, J.), S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5944/2012, decided 10.03.2025 [2025:RJ-JP:11637] — Kasam Ali v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The petitioner, an applicant under a 2010 advertisement/selection/recruitment process for the post of Madarsa Shiksha Sahyogi, challenged that process. The Court recorded that the impugned selection had concluded with all consequential appointments made, that a subsequent fresh recruitment had also been initiated and culminated leaving no vacant seats/posts, and that the petitioner could not substantiate availability of seats or survival of the lis. 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, together with the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel circulars dated 19.07.2001 (No. F.7(2)/DOP/A-2/81 Pt.) and 13.01.2016, the Court held that the waiting/reserved list for a public service examination lapses six months from issuance, and that once appointments are made no judicial interference lies at a belated stage. Following Om Prakash Ghiya v. State of Raj. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2706/2000, decided 13.02.2025), treated as part and parcel of this judgment, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to take appropriate legal recourse, if facts are otherwise; pending applications disposed of.

[2025:RJ-JP:11637]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5944/2012

Kasam Ali S/o Shri Ramjan Khan, Vill. And Post Kaithwara, Tehsil Pahadi, Distt. Bharatpur.

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, School And Sanskrit Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

Deputy Secretary, Elementary Education, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

Chairman, Rajasthan Madarasa Board, I Floor, Rajasthan Pathyapustak Mandal Bhawan, 2-2A, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Dungari, Jaipur.

Secretary, Rajasthan Madarsa Board, I Floor, Rajasthan Pathyapustak Mandal Bhawan, 2-2A, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Dungari, Jaipur.

District Collector, Bharatpur.

District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Bharatpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. D. Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. S. Chhaba, AAG Ms. Manju Joshi, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment

10/03/2025

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 2010 wherein the petitioner(s) has/have applied for the post of Madarsa Shiksha Sahyogi.

[2025:RJ-JP:11637]

[CW-5944/2012]

(2 of 3)

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 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. 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

[2025:RJ-JP:11637]

[CW-5944/2012]

(3 of 3)

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

(SAMEER JAIN),J

Pooja /33