Dismissed¶30

Shyam Singh S/O Shri Girraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Jan 2026CW/26372/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan HC Jaipur; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26372/2018; Shyam Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others; Hon'ble Justice Ashok Kumar Jain; order dated 08/01/2026; 2018 constable recruitment (advertisement 25.05.2018), Bharatpur District, TSP area, MBC quota; petitioner scored 39.375 marks against cut-off 33.125 but was not appointed; PST/PET 13.09.2018; Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution invoked; discrimination against respondents not established; writ under Article 226 refused; writ petition and miscellaneous applications dismissed; no relief granted.

What did the court decide?

The court observed that the petitioner has failed to show any ground why he was not considered. ¶25

Shyam Singh S/O Shri Girraj Singh Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:684]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26372/2018

¶4

Shyam Singh S/o Shri Girraj Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Mahatoli Post Chentoli Tehsil Bhusawar District Bharatpur (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Addl. Chief Secretary To Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶8

The Inspector-General Of Police (Headquarters), Police Headquarters, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶9

The Superintendent Of Police, District Bharatpur, Bharatpur (Rajasthan)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Dr.	Pushpendra Pal Singh with
	Mr.	Niranjan Singh Raghav
For Respondent(s)	:

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶13

Order

¶14

08/01/2026

¶15

Instant petition is preferred with following prayer: "(i) By an appropriate writ order or direction it

¶16

be declared that preventing the petitioner from being appointed on the post of Constable-General in Bharatpur District under MBC quota is unjust, improper, arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and be ordered to be quashed and set aside.

¶17

(ii) By an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to appoint humble petitioner on the post of Constable (General) under MBC

(2 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:684]

[CW-26372/2018]

quota under respondent No. 3 with effect the date other candidates have been appointed with all consequential benefits."

¶22

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in pursuance to advertisement dated 25.05.2018 for recruitment on the post of constable in the year 2018, the petitioner has filed an application and ultimately he was called for PST, PET. He also submitted that after the recruitment process, it was informed that petitioner has secured 39.375 marks in MBC category, but he was not given appointment. He also submitted that the petitioner is entitled for appointment, but the same was not granted.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record.

¶24

The facts as narrated by the petitioner indicate that pursuant to advertisement dated 25.05.2018 for the post of Constable for the year 2018, the petitioner applied for the post of Constable (General) in the concerned TSP area under MBC category. The petitioner has claimed 16.25 marks in Part A, 6.875 marks in Part B, and 16.25 marks in Part C, totaling 39.375 marks. The petitioner appeared for PST/PET on 13.09.2018. The written examination cut-off in Bharatpur District for the MBC category is 33.125.

¶25

As per Annexure-5, vide letter dated 13.10.2018, the petitioner was informed that the process of recruitment is continuing and the information sought by the petitioner can only be provided after completion of the selection process. The petitioner has failed to show any ground, why he was

(3 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:684]

[CW-26372/2018]

not considered. The petitioner has not been able to establish any case of discrimination against the respondents, therefore, no case is made out for interference and issuance of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

Accordingly, the writ petition, along with the miscellaneous application, if any, stands dismissed.

¶31

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶32

PREETI VALECHA /20

Shyam Singh S/O Shri Girraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Singh S/O Shri Girraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijendra Yadav Vs State Home Departmentors

Jc 834341 Y Ex Sub Satnam Sing S/O Shri Kartar Singh B/C Raisikh Vs Union of India

Jeetendra Kumar Bairwa Son of Shri Jai Lal, by Caste Bairwa, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Pahadiya S/O Shree Amar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Fakruddin @ Fakru S/O Jamaludeen Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Kumar Meena S/O Ramlal Ji Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan