1. Selection for teacher post under Ex-Serviceman category — Failure to submit proof of retirement as required by Rule 6-B of Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Rules, 1988. (Para 2 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 681
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/o Mangal Chand Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8131 of 2020
Decided On : 25-02-2026
Important Points
Submission of proof of retirement as mandated by service rules for ex-serviceman candidates is a mandatory requirement. Failure to provide such proof before the specified selection stages precludes the candidate from claiming reservation benefits.
Subject
Service Law - Public Employment
Act Referred
Rajasthan Civil Service Absorption of Ex-Serviceman Rules: R.6(a), R.6(b)
Headnote
(A) Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-Serviceman) Rules, 1988 - Rule 6B - Appointment of ex-servicemen - Mandatory requirement for submission of proof of retirement - A person retiring within one year must submit proof of retirement to the selection agency before appearing in the examination or interview as per the specified clauses of Rule 6B - Failure to produce such proof renders the candidate ineligible for reservation benefits under the ex-serviceman category. (Paras 8-10)
Facts of the case:
A candidate applied for the post of Senior Teacher under the ex-serviceman category. Although the candidate was placed on the merit list, the selection agency did not grant the reservation benefit as the candidate failed to submit the mandatory proof of retirement required by the amended rules and the modified advertisement. The candidate sought relaxation for one year and an extension of the joining date, citing that a no-objection certificate had not been issued by the time of counseling.
Findings of Court:
The candidate failed to satisfy the conditions prescribed under the relevant rules as mandated in the advertisement. Therefore, the candidate is not entitled to any relief under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court.
Issues: Whether a candidate seeking appointment under the ex-serviceman category is entitled to reservation benefits if they fail to submit proof of retirement as mandated by the applicable service rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the requirement to submit proof of retirement under Rule 6B is mandatory. A candidate who fails to provide such proof before the prescribed selection stages cannot be considered for the ex-serviceman quota, regardless of their position in the merit list.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Facts of the case:
A candidate applied for the post of Senior Teacher under the ex-serviceman category. Although the candidate was placed on the merit list, the selection agency did not grant the reservation benefit as the candidate failed to submit the mandatory proof of retirement required by the amended rules and the modified advertisement. The candidate sought relaxation for one year and an extension of the joining date, citing that a no-objection certificate had not been issued by the time of counseling.
Findings of Court:
The candidate failed to satisfy the conditions prescribed under the relevant rules as mandated in the advertisement. Therefore, the candidate is not entitled to any relief under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court.
Issues: Whether a candidate seeking appointment under the ex-serviceman category is entitled to reservation benefits if they fail to submit proof of retirement as mandated by the applicable service rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the requirement to submit proof of retirement under Rule 6B is mandatory. A candidate who fails to provide such proof before the prescribed selection stages cannot be considered for the ex-serviceman quota, regardless of their position in the merit list.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ram Pratap Saini, Mukesh Kumar Sharma
For the Respondents: Shreyansh Jain, Amit Lubhaya, Bhavya Kala, Devansh Sharma
For the Appellants : Ram Pratap Saini, Mukesh Kumar Sharma
For the Respondents: Shreyansh Jain, Amit Lubhaya, Bhavya Kala, Devansh Sharma
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims eligibility based on NOC; respondents contend mandatory proof of retirement under Rule 6-B was not submitted, hence no reservation benefit. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
3. Petitioner failed to submit proof of retirement before examination/counselling as mandated by Rule 6-B, therefore cannot claim ex-serviceman quota benefit. (Para 9 , 10 )
4. Compliance with Rule 6-B requiring proof of retirement is mandatory for ex-serviceman reservation; non-compliance forfeits eligibility. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Writ petition dismissed for failure to satisfy conditions under Rule 6-B; no relief granted. (Para 11 )
6. What is required for an ex-serviceman to claim reservation benefit under Rule 6-B of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Rules, 1988?
Under Rule 6-B, an applicant must submit proof of retirement before appearing in the examination or interview, even if holding a NOC. Failure to do so disqualifies the claim. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
7. Does holding a No Objection Certificate (NOC) alone satisfy the eligibility for ex-serviceman quota?
No, the NOC is insufficient without proof of retirement as mandated by Rule 6-B. The court held that the petitioner's failure to produce proof rendered him ineligible. (Para 2 , 9 , 10 )
8. Can a court grant relief if a candidate fails to comply with a statutory rule despite having a NOC?
No, the court declined to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction because the petitioner did not comply with mandatory Rule 6-B, which required proof of retirement before selection. (Para 10 , 11 )
ORDER :
1. Instant writ petition is filed by petitioner with following prayers:
"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further be pleased to:
i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the respondents be directed to give relaxation to the petitioner for one year by considering the Rule 6B of Rajasthan Civil Service (Absorption of Ex-Serviceman) Rules, 1988 under the Notification dated 17.04.2018 for appointment on the post of Sr. Teacher Gr. II (Non TSP Area) Subject Sanskrit under Ex-Serviceman Category.
ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the respondents be directed to extend the joining date of the petitioner on the post of Sr. Teacher Gr. II Subject Sanskrit until he is relieved from the Armed Force department.
iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the respondents be directed to not to reject the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Sr. Teacher Gr. II Subject Sanskrit.
iv) Pass any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioner.
v) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner"
2. Learned counsel for petitioner and petitioner in person submits that petitioner has filed an application for post of Teacher Grade-II (Sanskrit) pursuant to advertisement (Annexure-1) and (Annexure-2). He further submitted that petitioner was selected and petitioner has applied for NOC but same has not been issued till the counselling which was scheduled on 13.12.2019. He further submitted that after the counselling the name of petitioner finds place at serial no. 2008 in merit list issued vide result dated 27.02.2020. He also submitted that as per notification dated 17.04.2018 the person who has retired or is retiring within forthcoming one year after earning his/her pension on the basis of no objection certificate was eligible to apply for the post but has to submit proof of retirement to the selection committee. He further submitted that the petitioner has submitted NOC to claim appointment in Ex-serviceman category. He also submitted that the petitioner was not considered for appointment despite the petitioner was having NOC.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 RPSC has placed reliance upon notification dated 17.04.2018 whereby Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-serviceman) Rules, 1988 were amended and by insertion of Rule-6-B after Rule-6-A, it was mandatory for the petitioner to submit proof of retirement. He further submitted that the petitioner has concealed material facts and has not submitted any proof of retirement before appearing in the examination. He also submitted that the petitioner has failed to provide any proof of retirement till date of counselling i.e. 13.12.2019, thus, the petitioner was not given any reservation benefit of General Ex-serviceman category. He also submitted that the candidature of petitioner was not considered in light of Rule-6-B of Rules of 1988 and against Rule, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 has placed reliance upon arguments advanced by learned counsel for respondent no.3 and he submitted that claim of Ex-serviceman quota, it is mandatory for the petitioner to comply with the provisions of the Rules, but herein, the petitioner has not challenged the provisions of the Rules; therefore, he is not entitled to any relief.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
6. The brief facts of the case are that the RPSC invited applications for the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) by advertisement dated 09.04.2018, which was further amended on 04.05.2018 by a subsequent corrigendum issued by the RPSC. The terms of the advertisement were modified.
7. Adm
