Dismissed¶22

Rajendra Kumar v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Mar 2025CW/8063/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Driver-Constable recruitment/selection 2006; waiting/reserved list lapses after six months from issuance; no judicial interference at belated stage once appointments made; no vacant seats/posts after subsequent fresh recruitment; Rajasthan Department of Personnel circular 19.07.2001 No. F.7(2)/DOP/A-2/81 Pt.; Rajasthan circular dated 13.01.2016; Om Prakash Ghiya v. State of Raj. & Ors. SBCWP No. 2706/2000 judgment dated 13.02.2025; State of Orissa v. Raj Kishore Nanda (2010) 6 SCC 777; Girdhar Kumar Dadhich (2009) 2 SCC 706; Union of India v. B. Valluvan (2006) 8 SCC 686; Raj Rishi Mehra (2013) 12 SCC 243; writ petition dismissed; Sameer Jain J; 03/03/2025; [2025:RJ-JP:9762]; CW-8063/2007.

What did the court decide?

None; pending applications, if any, disposed of. ¶22

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether judicial interference is permissible at a belated stage in respect of the 2006 Driver-Constable selection/recruitment process, given that appointments under it are complete, a later process has left no vacant posts, and the waiting/reserved list lapses six months after issuance. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

Qua selection processes for public service examinations, the waiting/reserved list lapses after a span of six months from the date of its issuance, and where appointments are already made, no judicial interference can be made at a belated stage.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is dismissed in light of the ratio passed in Om Prakash Ghiya (supra), which shall be treated as part and parcel of the present judgment, and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8063/2007 (Rajendra Kumar v. State of Raj. & Ors.), High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench (Sameer Jain, J; 03/03/2025) - DISMISSED. The petition assailed the 2006 advertisement/selection/recruitment process for the post of Driver-Constable, but that process had concluded with all consequential appointments made, a subsequent fresh recruitment had been completed leaving no vacant seats/posts, and petitioner's counsel could not substantiate seat availability or survival of the lis. Relying on State of Orissa & Anr. v. Raj Kishore Nanda & Ors. (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 & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2013) 12 SCC 243, together 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 the waiting/reserved list for public service selections lapses six months from issuance and that once appointments are made, no judicial interference is possible at a belated stage. The petition was dismissed in light of the ratio in Om Prakash Ghiya v. State of Raj. & Ors. (SBCWP No. 2706/2000, judgment dated 13.02.2025), adopted as part and parcel of this judgment; pending applications were disposed of.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:9762]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8063/2007

Rajendra Kumar

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Raj And Ors

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, AAG

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶11

Judgment

¶12

03/03/2025

¶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 2006 wherein the petitioner(s) has/have applied for the post of Driver-Constable.

¶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

(2 of 2)

[2025:RJ-JP:9762]

[CW-8063/2007]

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶24

Pooja /32

Rajendra Kumar v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar v. State of Raj and Ors.

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

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.

Subhash Chandra Vs State Panchyati Raj Dep Anr.

Mahendra Singh Vs Union of India and Anr.