The court upheld the validity of minimum qualifying marks for recruitment as a discretionary power of the Commission, emphasizing administrative fairness and the principle that participation in the process estops candidates from later contesting its validity.

Judgment :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. At the outset it is clarified that the present D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 931/2024 has been preferred by the appellants assailing the order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13295/2024 (Rameshwar Choudhary & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). It is pertinent to note that another writ petition, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13461/2024 (Ramratan Gurjar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), was filed before the Jaipur Bench of this Hon’ble Court raising identical questions of law and fact arising out of the same recruitment process for the post of Veterinary Officer conducted pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.10.2019. Since both matters pertain to the same selection process and involve common issues concerning the prescription of minimum qualifying marks, they were ordered to be heard together and connected vide order dated 17.01.2025, for the sake of uniformity and to avoid conflicting decisions.

1.1. Both the above matters were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment, as the controversy involved in each arises from the same recruitment process and pertains to the identical issue. For the sake of convenience and clarity, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 931/2024 (Rameshwar Choudhary & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) has been treated as the lead case, and the decision herein shall govern the connected matter S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13461/2024 (Ramratan Gurjar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) as well.

1.2. The present Special Appeal (Writ) has been preferred by the appellants seeking the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this Civil Special Appeal (Writ) and further be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 11.09.2024 Annex.1 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13295/2024 and petitioners/appellants may be granted appointment on the vacant seats of Veterinary Officer as per the merit of the candidates.

Any other appropriate order or direction this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the appellant.”

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellants–writ petitioners had approached this Court by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13295/2024 laying challenge to the selection process undertaken by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) for the post of Veterinary Officer, pursuant to an advertisement dated 22.10.2019. The grievance of the appellants–writ petitioners was primarily directed against the fixation of a minimum qualifying threshold of 45% marks in aggregate for the Physically Handicapped Category, which according to them, had not been notified in the original advertisement.

2.1. In the writ petition, it was inter alia prayed that the respondents be directed to revise the result of the Physically Handicapped Category by excluding the application of the minimum 45% cut-off and to grant appointments to the appellants–writ petitioners as per their merit position. It was contended that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks was dehors the advertisement and therefore amounted to changing the rules of the game after the play had begun. The learned counsel for the appellants–writ petitioners submitted that the advertisement did not disclose any such qualifying benchmark and that the RPSC had no authority under the Rajasthan Animal Husbandr