[2025:RJ-JD:43984-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19565/2025 Manish Parihar S/o Bheem Raj Parihar, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Naya Baas, Mangra Punjla, Mandore, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Its Registrar General.

2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Poonia HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order

07/10/2025

1. Learned counsel for the respondents at the threshold submits that the controversy involved in this matter is more specifically covered by a judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gokala Ram Vs. The Rajasthan High Court & Anr.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14279/2024 decided on 12.09.2024 which is reproduced hereinbelow :-

"1. Both these writ petitions having common controversy wereheard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Briefly stated facts of the present matter are that the respondent- Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur had issued an advertisement dated 09th April 2024 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the direct recruitment against 222 posts of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate in the Rajasthan Judicial Services. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioners who belong to Ex-Serviceman- OBC/NCL category applied for the advertised posts.

3. The advertisement dated 09th April 2024 manifestly provides that the selection for the advertised posts shall be made as per the scheme of examination envisaged under the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2010’). The scheme of examination as provided under the Rules of 2010 clearly indicates that the Preliminary Examination shall be conducted for the purpose of screening and preparing list(category wise) of further eligible candidates being fifteen times the number of vacancies in the respective categories. Thereupon, at the second stage of the examination, viz., the written tests followed by the interview shall be held. The Rules of 2010 as well as the advertisement makes it quite clear that the marks obtained by the candidates in the Preliminary Examination shall not be counted/added up for the purpose of preparation of final select/merit list.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that they had secured higher marks in comparison to the Ex-Serviceman- General category candidates therefore the respondents ought to have applied the migration formula and migrated the petitioners in the Ex-

Serviceman- General category at the Preliminary Examination stage. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the merit list of Preliminary Examination published by the respondent provides cut-off marks of various categories, viz. General, SC, ST and OBC categories, etc. but no separate cut-off marks have been published for the candidates belonging to the Ex-Serviceman category. Learned counsel submitted that the acts & inaction of the respondents in not identifying or recognizing the eligible candidates falling under the Ex-Serviceman category by giving separate cut-off, for the purpose of horizontal reservation category-wise has resulted in hostile discrimination and is in violation of the Constitutional mandate envisaged under Article 14 & Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners belong to the Ex-Serviceman- OBC/NCL category and have obtained higher marks than the candidates belonging to Ex-Serviceman- General category therefore the petitioners are entitled to be placed in the merit list of Ex-Serviceman- General category by applying the principle of migration.

6. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently and fervently submitted that the petitioners who consciously took part in the process of selection cannot be permitted to ques