Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA
Jaslok Yadav, S/o Shri Hoshiyar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by declaration of result dated 13.08.2024, merit list dated 07.12.2024 and appointment letter dated 11.12.2024 instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a further prayer to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Junior Legal Officer.
2. Facts in brief are that one advertisement dated 19.07.2023 was issued by the respondents for inviting application on the post of Legal Assistant (Junior Legal Officer). As per aforesaid advertisement as many as nine vacancies were advertised, out of which five vacancies were relating to general category candidates, one for general woman, one for SC, one for OBC and one vacancy was to be filled through specially abled person.
3. Petitioner in the instant writ petition has stated that he belongs to OBC category and submitted his application form accordingly in the aforesaid category. After scrutiny of application form, he was allowed to appear in the online screening examination which took place on 10.09.2023.
4
Candidates from reserved categories can be appointed in general categories without affecting their rights to be considered for reserved positions, ensuring adherence to reservation policies.
Candidates with higher merit cannot be discriminated against on procedural grounds, emphasizing that merit should dictate appointments as per Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Transparency and communication in the appointment process, and the right to seek legal remedy if dissatisfied with the decision.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of migration from reserved category to open category based on merit, as mandated by Article 14 and Article 16(4) of the Constitution,....
Reservation policies in public employment must prioritize merit; candidates from reserved categories who qualify for general positions based on merit are to be treated as general category candidates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reservation for PWD candidates is horizontal and candidates must be appointed against vacancies exclusively earmarked for them.
Incorrect application category filling by the petitioner cannot be corrected post facto; the responsibility to ensure accuracy lies with the applicant.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article