Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2300
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
Vinod Kumari D/o Shri Radheshyam – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 17924, 17974 of 2025
Decided On : 04-12-2025
For the Appellants : Mahendra Singh Gurjar, Pradeep Kalwania
For the Respondents: M.F. Baig, Govind Gupta
Right to compete for vacancies is not protected if prior application is not resubmitted after withdrawal of advertisement; communication obligations of recruitment agency fulfilled through public notice.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986 - Recruitment process - Petitioners contested the validity of a new recruitment advertisement without prior cancellation of an earlier notification - Court noted that earlier notification was validly withdrawn and a fresh advertisement required new applications - Petitioners failed to reapply and were not prejudiced by non-communication of withdrawal of previous notification - Resulted in dismissal of writ petitions. (Paras 3-9, 17-21)
(B) Administrative Duties - Recruitment Agency's obligations concerning prior applicants and communication of withdrawal procedures - Court noted RPSC fulfilled its duties by public notification and was not required to communicate individually with candidates. (Paras 15-20)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners argue for candidacy consideration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioners claim procedural violations in recruitment. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. rpsc argues compliance with amended rules. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. withdrawal notice adequately publicized. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. no obligation to individually notify applicants. (Para 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 6. rules do not protect interests of applicants. (Para 14 , 17) |
| 7. no entitlement to relief based on error. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 8. writ petitions dismissed due to applicant negligence. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
ORDER :
1. These two writ petitions are filed by different petitioners on the ground that pursuant to notification dated 13.12.2024, they have filled up online application forms for recruitment on the post of Assistant Professors but without cancelling the notification dated 13.12.2024 and further corrigendum dated 10.01.2025, a fresh advertisement dated 18.09.2025 is issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to ‘the RPSC’) and permitting to those candidates, who applied, pursuant to subsequent advertisement dated 18.09.2025.
2. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners are not aware about the new and subsequent notification dated 18.09.2025 but when examination schedule is announced by RPSC then the petitioners have inquired about status of their application forms, and only then they come to know about date of their application form. Now, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. Since both the writ petitions raises common question, therefore, so they were tagged together and we are deciding these writ petitions with a common order but for ready reference, we are referring prayer of lead matter i.e. Vinod Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. as under:-
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed by any appropriate writ, order or direction the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to accept and allow the writ petition and impugned action by debarring the candidature of the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for selection on the post of Assistant professor in Home Science and further be directed to give appointment in case she stands in merit in terms of the advertisement dated 18.09.2025 with all consequential benefits.
Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance upon provisions of the Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Rules of 1986’) submitted that Part-III of the Rules of 1986 provides for recruitment process whereas Part-IV for procedure for direct recruitment. They submitted that Rule-19 of the Rules of 1986 provides for scrutiny of applications but after scrutiny, the applications of petitioners were found in order and were not rejected on the ground of scrutiny. He further submitted that Rule 16 A of the Rules of 1986 prescribes for frequency of direct recruitment and in the instant case, vacancy for year 2024 was cancelled but without opportunity to the petitioners. He further referred Rule 16 of the Rules of 1986, procedure for inviting applications by the RPSC by resorting to issue advertisement in public domain. They further referred Rule 7A of the Rules of 1986 about determination of vacancies and submitted that on 1st April of every year, the number of actual vacancy has to be determined and the petitioners have a right to compete for the vacancy for the year which they have filled up an application form after issuance of advertisement by the RPSC.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the entire advertisement dated 18.09.2025, nowhere it was mentioned that earlier advertisement dated 13.12.2024 and further corrigendum dated 10.01.2025 has been withdrawn. They further r
