Vijay Kumar Mudgal Vs District and Session Judge — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Vijay Kumar Mudgal Vs District and Session Judge — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who had applied pursuant to the 2010 advertisement/selection process for the post of Stenographer (Hindi & English), can still obtain appointment when the selection process has concluded with consequential appointments made, a subsequent fresh recruitment has been initiated and culminated, and no vacant seats/posts remain. +1 more

Court's answer

Counsel for the petitioner was unable to refute the respondents' contentions or substantiate the availability of seats or survival of the lis; the identical lis was already adjudicated in Om Prakash Ghiya (SBCWP No. 2706/2000, decided 13.02.2025), whose ratio is applicable to this petition.

Ratio / Principle

Qua selection processes for any public service examination, the waiting/reserved list lapses after six months from the date of its issuance, and where appointments have already been made, no judicial interference can be made at a belated stage (as per the relied-upon Supreme Court decisions and Rajasthan Department of Personnel circulars dated 19.07.2001 and 13.01.2016).

Key takeaways

Applying the ratio of Om Prakash Ghiya (supra), which is treated as part and parcel of the present judgment, the writ petition is dismissed; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), Sameer Jain, J. — Writ petition by a 2010 applicant for the post of Stenographer (Hindi & English) challenging the advertisement/selection/recruitment process dismissed. By the date of hearing the impugned selection process had concluded with all consequential appointments made, a fresh subsequent recruitment had been initiated and culminated, and no vacant seats/posts remained; moreover, the identical lis had already been adjudicated on 13.02.2025 in Om Prakash Ghiya Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (SBCWP No. 2706/2000). Placing reliance on that judgment — expressly treated as 'part and parcel' of the present judgment — and on State of Orissa & Anr. v. Raj Kishore Nanda & Ors. (2010) 6 SCC 777, Girdhar Kumar Dadhich Vs. State of Rajasthan (2009) 2 SCC 706, Union of India v. B. Valluvan (2006) 8 SCC 686, and Raj Rishi Mehra & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2013) 12 SCC 243, along with 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 qua any public service selection process the waiting/reserved list lapses six months from issuance and, appointments having been made, no judicial interference is permissible at a belated stage. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

[2025:RJ-JP:10589]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7210/2011

Vijay Kumar Mudgal S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Mudgal, 1/22, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur

----Petitioner

Versus

District And Sessions Judge, Ajmer

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Mishra For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment

06/03/2025

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 Stenographer (Hindi & English).

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:10589]

[CW-7210/2011]

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 /85