[2025:RJ-JD:44411]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11599/2025

Shiv Kumar S/o Shri Ram Kumar, Aged About 34 Years, Resident

Of Ward No. 13, 14 Ndr-Cad, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,

Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan,

Secretariat Jaipur.

2. District Education Officer, (Head Quarters),

Hanumangarh.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Mathur

Mr. Hemant Singh Solanki

Mr. Prakash Kumar

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak, AAAG

Mr. Lavish Bhati for Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG

Ms. Nandipna Gehlot for

Mr. Manish Patel

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

08/10/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the respondents be directed to provide appointment to the petitioner on the post of ‘Upper Primary School Teacher (General

Education) (Level-2) in subject English.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he filled up his form qua the non TSP area in OBC category. The petitioner found place in the select list but was not afforded appointment on the premise

that he had already availed relaxation in the REET Examination and hence, once having availed the relaxation, he would now not be entitled to be migrated from the category of OBC to General although he had secured more marks than the last selected general category candidate.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Division Bench of this Court in Deepika Kunwar Chundawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.31/2024 and other connected matters (decided on 26.05.2025) has, in identical facts and qua the same recruitment process in question, already held that the rule of migration will be applicable even if a candidate has passed TET/eligibility qualification by relaxed criteria. Therein, the Court specifically held that such candidates shall be entitled to the benefit of rule of migration.

4. Counsel submits that in view of the ratio laid down in Deepika Kunwar Chundawat (supra), the present petitioner too deserves to be considered qua the unreserved/general category.

5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents while relying upon the recent Apex Court judgment in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sajib Roy; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1943 tried to distinguish the ratio laid down in Deepika Kunwar Chundawat (supra).

6. Counsel further raised the ground of delay and latches. He submits that the petitioner chose to prefer the petition in the year 2025 only after the judgment in Deepika Kunwar Chundawat (supra) having been pronounced. He submits that a fence-sitter cannot be held entitled for any relief at a belated stage.

In support of his argument, counsel relied upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jaishree Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10059/2021 (decided on 26.08.2021).

7. Counsel further submits that if at this stage, the petitioner is granted appointment, definitely, some other person from General category who has already been afforded appointment shall be ousted and without impleading such party who is likely to be affected, the present petition cannot be maintained.

8. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record.

9. So far the judgment in Sajib Roy (supra) is concerned, evidently, that is a judgment subsequent to the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Deepika Kunwar Chundawat (supra). Further, if the counsel wishes to distinguish the ratio of Deepika Kunwar Chundawat (supra) in light of Sajib Roy (supra), his remedy definitely would be before the learned Division Bench.

10. So far as the ratio laid down in Deepika Kunwar Chundawat (supra) is concerned, counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the fact that the issue in question would definitely be covered by the said ratio.

11. In Deepika Kunwar Chundawat (supra), the Court directed as under:

“46. As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion, the order pa