2026 Supreme(Raj) 266

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Ravindra Basniwal, S/o. Kanchan Lal Saini – Petitioner 
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Government of Rajasthan – Respondent 
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6383 of 2025 Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6396 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6397 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6398 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6399 of 2025
Decided On : 19-05-2026

When recruitment results are revised due to incorrect vacancy determination, authorities must re-evaluate merit and offer appointments to eligible candidates scoring higher than the last appointed individual. Such candidates receive notional seniority and pay benefits, while existing employees remain protected, and relief is restricted to diligent litigants.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Recruitment - Determination of vacancies - Principles for reassessment of vacancies and appointment - Respondents directed to re-determine number of vacancies in accordance with settled legal guidelines, re-evaluate merit of candidates based on revised results, and offer appointment to eligible candidates securing higher marks than the last appointed candidate in their respective category. (Para 17)

(B) Service Law - Benefits - Notional benefits - Petitioners held entitled to notional benefits of pay fixation and seniority upon selection upon revised results, excluding entitlement to actual monetary arrears for the past period. (Para 17)

(C) Service Law - Protection of incumbents - Termination - Candidates appointed pursuant to original results shall not be terminated solely on account of subsequent revision of answer keys, as they were not at fault. (Para 17)

(D) Service Law - Judicial relief - Limitation - Benefit of relief restricted to petitioners and candidates who had already approached the court, excluding those who remained indolent or failed to agitate their rights within a reasonable time. (Para 18)

Facts of the case:
Several writ petitions were filed challenging the recruitment process, alleging errors in the determination of vacancies and selection criteria. The parties reached a consensus that the controversy was squarely covered by the ratio of a prior judgment, requesting the court to issue similar directions for the re-assessment of vacancies and candidate eligibility.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the respondents must accurately re-assess the number of vacancies based on established judicial guidelines. Upon re-determination, the respondents are required to re-evaluate the merit of the petitioners, offering appointments to those who score higher than the last appointed candidate, subject to the availability of vacancies.

Issues: The main issues addressed were the methodology for determining vacancies, the criteria for appointing candidates who surpass the merit of previously appointed individuals, and the extent of retrospective benefit entitlement for those whose results are revised.

Ratio Decidendi: Where recruitment processes are affected by incorrect vacancy calculations, the State is obligated to conduct a compliant re-evaluation of merit. While successful litigants are entitled to notional benefits, the court must balance this by protecting currently appointed candidates from termination and restricting relief to active litigants to prevent stale or delayed claims.

Result: Petitions allowed in terms of previous judgment.