Back
[2025:RJ-JD:12071]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4850/2019
1. Raj Kumar Meghwal S/o Shri Jasaram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Sadari, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali.
2. Manohar Lal S/o Shri Raghunath Jat,, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village- Post Hod, Via Khandela, District Sikar.
3. Krishna Kumari D/o Shri Jaihind Undriwal,, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Gopal Vihar, Near Loti School, Housing Board Colony, Jhalawar.
4. Anita Bai D/o Shri Punya Ram Meena,, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Thekrin, Post Ballupura, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalor.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhalawar.
----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1501/2019
1. Amba Lal Kumawat S/o Shri Remat Lal Kumawat, Aged About 33 Years, Village Post Thala, District Bhilwara.
2. Suman Patel D/o Shri Jairam Patel W/o Shri Puran Patel, Aged About 32 Years, Jodhava Bera, Bilara, District Jodhpur.
3. Daya Ram S/o Shri Dungar Ram, Aged About 43 Years, Village
28 Chak, Post Bhagwansar, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.
4. Rajkumar Jajoriya S/o Shri Madan Lal Jajoriya, Aged About 32 Years, Keshopura, Ward No. 12, Jaipur.
5. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Manbhar Dayal Jangir, Aged About 44 Years, Village - Post Pacheri Badi, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu.
6. Jile Singh Nehra S/o Shri Maru Ram, Aged About 36 Years, Village Post Sanwlod, Tehisl Buhana, District Jhunjhunu.
7. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 30 Years, Vpo Sirsla, Tehsil Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu.
8. Sombeer S/o Shri Balbir Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Village Amarpura Kalla, Tehsil Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu.
9. Mohan Lal Sharma S/o Shri Ram Kumar Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, Village Sheosinghpura, Post Dulania, Via Pilani, Tehsil Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu.
10. Priyanka Kumari D/o Shri Deo Karan Singh Jhajharia, Aged About 27 Years, D/4-Iii-A, Khetri Nagar, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu.
11. Sukh Dev S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 32 Years, Regar Basti, Ward No. 16, Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu.
12. Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 34 Years, Bahadurwas, District Jhunjhunu.
13. Dharmendra Shah S/o Shri Pravin Chandra Shah, Aged About 41 Years, Partapur, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara.
14. Firoj Hussain Mansoory S/o Shri Mustak Ahmed Mansoory, Aged About 39 Years, Boheda, Tehsil Barisadri, District Chittorgarh.
15. Prahlad Singh S/o Shri Ram Chand, Aged About 35 Years, Panhori, Tehsil Deeg, Naglalakhmi, District Bharatpur.
16. Ram Niwas S/o Shri Isar Ram, Aged About 31 Years, Badopal, Tehsil Pilibanga, Chak Thakruwala, District Hanumangarh.
17. Sawai Singh Bhati S/o Shri Dalpat Singh Bhati, Aged About 38 Years, Chamu, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.
18. Om Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Baboo Lal Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, Galod, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk.
19. Vishan Singh Raj Purohit S/o Shri Raju Singh Raj Purohit, Aged About 31 Years, Kanana, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.
20. Mahaveer Kumar Jain S/o Shri Rajmal Jain, Aged About 42 Years, Village Post Sundani, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara.
21. Bhikha Ram Kumawat S/o Shri Bhanwaru Ram Kumawat, Aged About 39 Years, Vpo Lambiya, Tehsil Jaitaran, Anandpur Kalu, District Pali.
22. Santlal S/o Shri Manphool Singh, Aged About 42 Years, Vpo Jhansal, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.
23. Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Panna Lal, Aged About 31 Years, Ward No. 7, Kesav Colony, 8 Psd-B, District Ganganagar.
24. Om Prakash S/o Shri Manohar Ram, Aged About 39 Years, Vpo Nokhra Godaran, Via Aau, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur.
25. Dalpat Ram S/o Shri Meva Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Bisu Kalan, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer.
26. Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri Kesha Ram, Aged About 30 Years, Village Lawari, Post Siyara, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur.
27. Bhanwar Lal Godara S/o Shri Gopi Ram Godara, Aged About 35 Years, Shekhsar, Tehsil Loonkaransar, District Barmer.
28. Raju Ram S/o Shri Likhma Ram, Aged About 34 Years, Ward No.
4, Gram Molaniyan, Dheeran Station, Tehsil Loonkaransar, District Bikaner.
29. Sita Ram Rajora S/o Shri Balbeer Rajora, Aged About 31 Years, Village Berwa Mohalla, Saloli, Alwar.
30. Kuldeep Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Bhabut Singh Chouhan, Aged About 34 Years, Dakghar Gali Bera, District Pali.
31. Dilip Kumar S/o Shri Bhala Ram, Aged About 29 Years, Vpo Bhata, Tehsil Sindhari, District Barmer.
32. Mohan Lal Khatik S/o Shri Ram Chandra, Aged About 40 Years, Main Road, Tana, Tehsil Bhool Sagar, District Chittorgarh.
33. Hanuman Ram S/o Shri Ladu Ram, Aged About 31 Years, Devaniya, District Jodhpur.
34. Chandar Kumhar S/o Shri Hajari Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Vpo Gajner, Tehsil Kolayat, District Barmer.
35. Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Shyam Lal Sharma, Aged About
32 Years, Village Nindar, Ward No. 1, Via Harmara, District Jaipur.
36. Shashikant Singhal S/o Shri Tejpal Singhal, Aged About 35 Years, B-116, L.s. Nagar, Nayakhera, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.
37. Ramswaroop Khowal S/o Shri Bhairoon Lal Khowal, Aged About
47 Years, P. No. 5, Ganesh Vihar Vistar, Nadi Ka Phatak, Murlipura, Jaipur.
38. Ashok Kumar Chandel S/o Shri Banshi Lal, Aged About 33 Years, Bagor, Tehsil Mandal, District Bhilwara.
39. Suresh Kumar Saini S/o Shri Motilal Saini, Aged About 37 Years, Mubarak Nagar, Post Somp, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk.
40. Priyanka D/o Shri Ram Pratap, Aged About 26 Years, Village Bairasar Bara, Post Jaitpura, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Rajsamand.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalore.
6. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer.
7. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh.
8. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.
9. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali.
10. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu. 11. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bundi. 12. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Baran.
13. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhalawar. 14. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur. 15. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner.
16. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Firoda.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Soni for Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG & Mr. Pawan Bharti for Mr. I.R.
Choudhary, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Please provide the actual content of the legal document (insert it in place of {content} within the
Order (Oral)
04/03/2025
1. Petitioners herein are before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to revise the merit list for the post of Teacher Gr.III pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.02.2012 (Annex.1). Thereafter, if they are found to be in merit and otherwise eligible, they be appointed on the said post.
2. Vide this common order, these petitions are decided together as not only the facts involved are similar, but even the issue therein is common. For the sake of brevity, facts are taken from SBCWP No.4850/2019.
3. Briefly speaking relevant facts of the case are that respondents issued an advertisement on 24.02.2012 for Teacher Grade-III (Primary and Upper Primary School) positions, with 10,609 posts for Level-I and 28,935 posts for Level-II, totaling 39,544 posts. The petitioners, being eligible, applied for both levels. The written examination was conducted on 02.06.2012, and the results were declared on 26.06.2012, with appointments made to 9,529 Level-I and 27,788 Level-II posts.
3.1. In August 2013, the results were revised following court judgments regarding answer keys and the RTET revision. This revision removed 2,806 candidates who fell below the cutoff, but their services continued per other court rulings. On 18.11.2014, another judgment in the case of Ramdhan Kumawat directed the respondents to revise results based on model answer keys and issue a fresh select list.
3.2. In November 2016, the results were again revised, removing 6,235 previously selected candidates. After the revision, 3,008 ousted candidates were absorbed into vacant posts per the advertisement, while 3,227 were absorbed on newly available seats. However, the Zila Parishads were required to absorb all ousted candidates into fresh vacant posts. Instead, 3,008 posts were filled from the advertised posts, which should have been filled by candidates like the petitioners, who were in merit. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Relevant stand taken by the respondents in their reply is that the Zila Parishad, Bhilwara, advertised 189 posts for Hindi and 586 posts for Social Science in 2012. Petitioners No.2 and No.4 applied under the OBC and ST categories, respectively. Petitioner No.2 scored 157.12 marks and Petitioner No.4 scored 111.17 marks after adding 20% RTET scores. However, the cut-off for their categories was 163.35 and 119.19, so they were not considered for appointment. Following a court order, the results were revised, and the petitioners' new cumulative scores were 169.29 and 128.07, but the revised cut-off was 169.89 and 128.49, meaning they still did not qualify.
4.1. The respondents state that the posts for OBC and ST categories have been filled and no vacancies remain. As the petitioners' scores fall below the revised cut-off, they are not in the merit list and therefore could not be appointed. The respondents request the High Court to dismiss the writ petition based on this objection.
5. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and have perused the case record.
6. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the petitioners seek to challenge the outcome of this selection process, asserting that they should have been appointed to the post being more meritorious than others in the same category as they applied under. It is noteworthy that no interim protection of any kind was granted to the petitioners during the pendency of the writ proceedings. At this belated stage, it is not feasible to assess the merits of the petitioners’ performance, especially since the records related to the selection process for unsuccessful candidates are no longer available. As per well-established legal principles, an unsuccessful candidate is not entitled to challenge the entire selection process once it has reached its final conclusion, solely on the grounds of failing to succeed in the competition. The petitioners, therefore, cannot seek to annul or alter the selection process simply because they w
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
