SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Raj) 1535

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR 
SAMEER JAIN, J.
Mohit Soni S/o. Shri Giriraj Prasad & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Represented through Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government Secretariat & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 278 of 2025 Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 202 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 347 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 518 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 796 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 801 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 869 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 870 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1351 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1524 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1539 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1693 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1849 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1865 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2658 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2796 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 614 of 2025 Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 697 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 904 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2073 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2080 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3702 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14560 of 2024 Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 810 of 2025
Decided On : 05-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Utkarsh Dubey, Mr. Abhay Singh, Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Ajatshatru Mina with Mr. Movil Jeenwal, Mr. Himanshu Kala, Mr. Nripraj Bhati, Mr. Anand Sharma for Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mr. Anoop Pareek with Mr. Parnav Pareek, Mr. Tarun Verma for Mr. Shivatma Kumar Tank, Mr. Aamir Khan for Mr. Ram Pratap Saini, Mr. Sudhir Yadav for Mr. Brajesh Kumar Jatti, Mr. Nikhil Kumawat, Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Mohammad Wasim Khan, Mr. Vikash Ghosalya.
For the Respondent: Mr. Kartikaya Sharma with Mr. Aditya Sharma for Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG, Ms. Manju Joshi, AGC with Ms. Deepa Singh, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Maheshwari with Ms. Bhavana Ladha, Dr. Abhinav Sharma, Mr. Shobit Tiwari with Mr. Pushpendra Singh Tanwar, Mr. Rohit Tiwari.

Candidates availing relaxed standards under the ME category cannot migrate to other reserved categories, affirming the principle against double reservation in public employment.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, and 16 - Rajasthan Common Eligibility Test Rules, 2022 - Rule 6 - Legality of recruitment process for Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant - Petitioners challenged the inclusion of candidates from the Ministerial Employees (ME) category in other reserved categories despite relaxed cutoffs - Court held that the ME category candidates could not migrate to other categories after availing relaxed standards, affirming the principle against double reservation. (Paras 36-50)

(B) Reservation Principles - Horizontal and vertical reservations must be applied in accordance with statutory provisions - The Court emphasized that the ME category is a horizontal reservation and candidates qualifying under it cannot claim benefits under vertical categories unless they meet the respective cutoffs. (Paras 36-50)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners contested the final merit list declared on 17.12.2024, arguing that candidates who qualified under relaxed standards for the ME category were improperly included in other reserved categories, violating their rights to fair consideration.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the selection process adhered to the statutory framework and that the inclusion of ME candidates in other categories did not constitute double reservation.

Issues: The main issues were whether candidates availing relaxed standards could migrate to other categories and whether such inclusion violated constitutional rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the ME category candidates must remain within their category for selection, and the recruitment process was conducted lawfully.

Result: The petitions were dismissed, and the merit list dated 17.12.2024 was upheld.

JUDGMENT :

1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the core controversy requiring adjudication predominantly pertains to the legality and validity of the impugned result dated 17.12.2024 declared by the respondents in pursuance to the examination conducted in furtherance to the advertisement dated 20.06.2023 whereby the respondent-Board had invited applications for the post of Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant. Although ancillary issues are also raised, the principal question of law revolves around the legality and validity of the impugned result whereby the respondents have included the candidates of Ministerial Employees (hereinafter referred to as ‘ME category’) by treating their candidature in the SC, ST or General category. Having regard to the commonality of issues both in law and in fact, and upon consent being recorded from the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court deems it appropriate to treat SBCWP NO. 278/2025 titled as Mohit Soni and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. as the lead petition for the purposes of this adjudication.

2. It is, however, considered apposite to clarify at the outset that while there may exist factual variances among the individual petitions constituting the present batch, such discrepancies are confined solely to the narrative factual matrices peculiar to each case. They do not impinge upon or detract from the common questions of law which fall for consideration before this Court. Accordingly, the judgment rendered herein shall apply to all the writ petitions connected and heard together with the lead matter, on a mutatis mutandis basis, subject to necessary adaptation to the individual factual contexts where required.

3. Before proceeding to examine the present petitions on their merits, it is imperative to first delineate the foundational facts and the core issues arising therein. A precise appreciation of the factual matrix and procedural background is essential to contextualize the grievances of the petitioners and the legal questions that fall for adjudication. The salient aspects of the petitions are, therefore, summarized as under:

FACTUAL NARRATIVE:

4. On 21.09.2022 the respondent-Board issued an advertisement (advertisement no. 9/2022) inviting applications from eligible candidates for the Common Eligibility Test – Graduation Level Examination, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as 'CET'). Consecutively, on 20.06.2023 the respondent-Board issued an advertisement (advertisement no. 2/2023) for recruitment to 5190 posts of Junior Accountant and 198 posts of Tehsil Revenue Accountant. Out of the advertised posts, 12.5% of the vacancies under the non-TSP (Tribal Sub-Plan) area, and three (03) posts under the TSP area, were earmarked for reservation in favor of candidates falling under the ME category.

5. After the receipt of application forms, the respondents, on 06.12.2023, declared the cut-off marks based on CET scores. Distinct cutoff marks were prescribed for different categories, namely, General, Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), Most Backward Classes (MBC), and special categories including the ME category. Notably, the cutoff marks under the ME category were determined at 31.8792, which was substantially lower than the cutoffs prescribed for the other categories.

6. Thereafter, on 20.12.2023, the respondent-Board issued the list of candidates eligible to appear for the Main Examination for the posts of Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant. The said Main Examination was conducted on 11.02.2024. Subsequent thereto, on 27.06.2024, the respondents declared the category-wise cutoffs and called candidates, twice the number of advertised vacancies, for the process of document verification. The cutoffs declared for various categories were illustratively as follows: SC (General) – 447.46, SC (Female) – 319.30, OBC (General) – 555.61, OBC (Female) – 461.30, and for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top