A litigant cannot claim distinction from a judicial decision relied upon for relief; subsequent judgments affecting the basis of entitlement invalidate previous claims.

ORDER :

REKHA BORANA, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure-12) whereby the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade stood cancelled.

2. The facts are that the petitioner having work experience as Compounder/Nurse with Dr. Sarvepali Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University, Jodhpur (respondent No.5) through placement agency, participated in the recruitment process initiated in pursuance to advertisement dated 07.06.2013.

3. As per condition No.7 of the said advertisement, bonus marks were to be granted to the candidates having work experience in terms of the conditions as specified therein.

4. At the first instance, the petitioner was not granted the bonus marks and hence, he preferred a writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3906/2015) before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2016. A Special Appeal (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.901/2016) was preferred against the said order which came to be disposed of by the Division Bench vide order dated 28.03.2017.

5. Before the Division Bench, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the judgment as passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10246/2013; Yadvendra Shandilya & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (decided on 26.02.2016) was not considered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition.

6. Keeping into consideration the said submission, the Division Bench disposed of the Special Appeal while granting a liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge.

7. In pursuance to the said liberty, a review petition (S.B. Writ Review No.75/2017) was filed by the petitioner which came to be allowed vide order dated 24.08.2017. The Court while allowing the review petition observed and held as under:

“This is how, the review petition has come before this Court. Mr. Yashpal Khileree, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the controversy in question is squarely covered bydecision of this Court dated 26.02.2016 rendered by a Division Bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10246/2013 titled as “Yadvendra Shandilya & Ors. Vs. State (Ayurved Department) & Ors.” whereby the Division Bench at Jaipur has held that the persons appointed through placement agency or by the National Institute of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University are entitled for grant of bonus marks in terms of Rule19 of the Scheme. The relevant part of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

“We further make it clear that this Court has not expressed about the individual petitioner whether he had been engaged by the National Institute of Ayurved or engaged through placement agency and it is for the petitioner to place documentary evidence in support of their claim but we may hold that as regard the persons who are appointed through placement agency or by the national Institute of Ayurved, by virtue of decision of the State Government dated 08.02.2016 & the judgment of which reference has been made supra, may be considered for grant of benefit of bonus marks in terms of proviso to Rule, 19 of the Scheme of Rules for participating in the decision process and if found suitable and finds place in the order of merit after bonus marks may be considered for appointment& with these directions/ob