2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 15878
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
PAWAN KUMAR JANGIR SON OF SHRI JAGDISH LAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 19751 / 2025
[2025:RJ-JP:51471]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19751/2025
Pawan Kumar Jangir Son Of Shri Jagdish Lal, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Bhagwanpura, Post Ojiyana, District
Bhilwara (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Sanskrit
Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Rajya Krishi Prabandh
Snsthan Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur Through Secretary.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.S. Gouttam
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nalin G. Narain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Order
18/12/2025
1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with
following prayers:
“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed, The Hon'ble Court may be directed to respondents to accept the online application form on the basis of OTR No. 1.e. #P23 993816286K or accept offline application form and allow to participate under recruitment advertisement dated 09/2025 for the post of Teacher subject Sanskrit level- II, class VI to VIII by issuing admit card in favour of petitioner; ii) Further may kindly be declare the illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents by which respondents not accept the online application form of petitioner after generating the OTR number and receiving the
requisite fee Rs. 400/-;
iii) Further may kindly be directed to respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Sanskrit Teacher
Level-II, class VI to VIII under said recruitment, if he declared successful after participating in recruitment process; iv) Any other appropriate order, or direction which this Hon'ble court deem fit and proper in favour of the appellant may also kindly be passed.”
2. Mr. Nalin G. Narayan accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 2 and the office is directed to reflect his name as counsel for Respondent No. 2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon the order dated 04-12-2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 19009/2025 Babli Kumari Vs. Secretary, RSSB submits that Respondent No. 2 has issued Advertisement No. 9/2025 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Teacher (Sanskrit) Level II for Class- VIth to VIIIth. It is further submitted that the petitioner, while filling up the online application form on the website portal of the respondent, filled in all the required details and also deposited a sum of Rs. 400/- as fee through online payment, whereupon a receipt bearing No. 25720596192 was generated and thereafter OTR No. #P23993816286K was issued in favour of the petitioner. However, suddenly the site crashed and the application form could not be completed. He further submitted that this Hon’ble Court has granted permission to identically placed persons in Babli Kumari (supra) and Rubina Yadav (connected with Babli Kumari).
4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2, who submitted that the last date for filling up the application form was 06-12-2025 and the same has already expired. He further submitted that the instant petition has been filed after the closure of the last date.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
6. In the case of Babli Kumari and Rubina Yadav (supra), this Court considered specific issues wherein the name of the candidate was different from the Aadhaar Card and, in such a situation, OTP was not generated. This Court examined the said issue. Further, both Babli Kumari and Rubina Yadav had approached this Court well before the closing date of the application, and this Court passed an order dated 04-12-2025, facilitating resolution of their grievances well before the last date. In the present case, the petitioner has approached this Court after the last date of filling up the form. Thus, the case of the present petitioner is different from Babli Kumari and Rubina Yadav (supra). However, considerin