Dismissed¶23

Subhash Chandra v. State Panchyati Raj Dep Anr.

Rajasthan HC3 Mar 2025CW/7520/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Belated challenge to 2013 LDC selection/recruitment; process over, appointments made, no vacant posts; waiting/reserved list lapses after six months per Rajasthan DoP circulars 19.07.2001 (F.7(2)/DOP/A-2/81 Pt.) and 13.01.2016; Om Prakash Ghiya SBCWP No. 2706/2000 (13.02.2025) ratio applied; SCC citations (2010) 6 SCC 777, (2009) 2 SCC 706, (2006) 8 SCC 686, (2013) 12 SCC 243; writ petition dismissed; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Per the Rajasthan DoP circulars dated 19.07.2001 (F.7(2)/DOP/A-2/81 Pt.) and 13.01.2016, for any public service examination the waiting/reserved list lapses after six months from its issuance, and once appointments are already made, no judicial interference can be made at a belated stage. ¶22

Subhash Chandra Vs State Panchyati Raj Dep Anr. — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether judicial interference is permissible at a belated stage in a 2013 LDC selection matter where appointments are already made, no vacant seats/posts remain, and the waiting/reserved list has lapsed six months after issuance. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

¶22

Ratio / Principle

As on date no vacant seats/posts are available: the impugned selection process is over with all consequential appointments made, and a subsequent fresh advertisement/selection process has also been initiated and culminated.

¶15

Key takeaways

The petitioner's counsel was unable to refute the contentions regarding completion of the process or substantiate the availability of seats/survival of the lis; accordingly the Om Prakash Ghiya ratio (identical lis, decided 13.02.2025) governs and the petition is dismissed, that judgment being treated as part and parcel of this judgment.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7520/2013) by a 2013 LDC applicant DISMISSED. The impugned 2013 advertisement/selection process stood concluded with all consequential appointments made, a subsequent fresh selection process had also culminated, and no vacant posts remained. Relying on Rajasthan Department of Personnel circulars dated 19.07.2001 (F.7(2)/DOP/A-2/81 Pt.) and 13.01.2016, the Court held that a waiting/reserved list lapses six months from issuance and, appointments having been made, no judicial interference lies at a belated stage. Precedents relied 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. The ratio in Om Prakash Ghiya v. State of Raj. (SBCWP No. 2706/2000, decided 13.02.2025) on the identical lis was adopted as part and parcel of the judgment. (Sameer Jain, J.; 03/03/2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:9957]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7520/2013

¶4

Subhash Chandra S/o Shri Chander Singh, Pipal Ka Bass, Post Mandawa, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayat, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶8

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jhunjhunu

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sanjay Mehla with Ms. Sunita Mehla
For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Sara Parveen for
	Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶12

Judgment

¶13

03/03/2025

¶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 2013 wherein the petitioner(s) has/have applied for the post of LDC.

¶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 13.02.2025 passed in SBCWP No. 2706/2000 titled as Om

(2 of 2)

[2025:RJ-JP:9957]

[CW-7520/2013]

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶25

Pooja /86

Subhash Chandra v. State Panchyati Raj Dep Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chandra v. State Panchyati Raj Dep Anr.

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

Dr. Preeti Choudhary D/O Shri Sada Ram Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Mahesh Kumar Sonwal S/O Gopi Ram Sonwal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Dulichand Yadav Vs the Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Rakesh Kumar Sain Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Mahendra Singh Vs Union of India and Anr.

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Raj and Ors.