[2026:RJ-JP:7175]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9564/2014 Mohit Dixit S/o Shri Sudhir Dixit, aged about 30 years, resident of 121, Muktanand Nagar, Gopalpura By-Pass, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus University Of Rajasthan Service Through Registrar ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.P. Mathur Mr. A.K.Sharma Senior Advocate through Video Conferencing HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Judgment

1. Date of conclusion of arguments 12/02/2026 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 12/02/2026

3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced: Full Judgment

4. Date of pronouncement 16/ 02/2026

1. The present civil writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer:-

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be please to call for the entire record from the respondent Department in respect of the number of applications called, qualifications, the persons interviewed and the list of selection so as to come to a conclusion that the petitioner has not validly been called for the interview inspite of having better qualifications than the others, who had been called for the interview and either of the person have been given appointment on the post. After scrutinizing the record, this Hon’ble Court may kindly pass the appropriate orders, thereby directing the respondent that the petitioner be called for the interview and for consideration according to law for the post of Assistant Professor (Education) and if found successful be granted appointment according to law. All the other consequential benefits in respect of pay, seniority etc. be also allowed to be granted to the petitioner. Any other appropriate order or direction, which is deemed to be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. It is averred in the writ petition that the respondents issued an advertisement (Annexure-1) dated 01.11.2012, inviting applications in prescribed forms for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in various subjects, and the petitioner applied in pursuance of the said advertisement through a registered post on 26.12.2012. It is also averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was never informed of the rejection or acceptance of the application, and, after making enquiries, nothing was revealed. Thereafter, the petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act and learned that his candidature had been rejected. Thereafter, a demand notice (Annexure-7) was sent through the Advocate, but it also remained unanswered. It is also averred in the petition that at the time of applying for the appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Education), the petitioner was eligible as per the University Ordinance, i.e., Ordinance 141-D, and had the requisite PhD Degree. It is also stated that as per the qualification, clearance of NET Examination was not necessary, however, despite the necessary qualification, petitioner’s candidature was not considered and even he was not informed about the rejection of his application, therefore, the respondents be directed that the petitioner be called for interview and considered accordingly for the post of Assistant Professor (Education) and if found successful, be granted appointment in accordance with law.

The respondents, in their reply and additional affidavit, have stated that at the time of applying for the post of Assistant Professor, the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification and had not qualified for the NET Examination. In the additional affidavit submitted by the respondents, it is also averred that pursuant to the advertisement dated 01.11.2012, none of the candidates having a degree of PhD was given exemption from NET/SLET/SET; only those candidates who have acquired a degree of PhD, as per the University Grants Commission Regulations 2009, were to be