HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 184/2022 Board Of Secondary Education Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus Deep Chand ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 160/2022 Rajasthan Board Of Secondary Education Ajmer ----Appellant Versus Indu Patel ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Anirudh Singh Shekhawat Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Aniket Tater Mr. Hanuman Choudhary HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order

27/08/2025

1. The matter comes up for admission.

2. At the outset, learned Advocate General submits that none of the respondents has got chance to be selected even if the disputed questions, as directed to be revised in the impugned order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in the batch of writ petitions relating to REET-2021, were revised deciding or not deciding the said questions is of no academic consequence. He further submits that REET examination has been conducted and the only possible effect of the impugned judgment would be in respect of future recruitments where the REET-2021 result may be relied upon.

3. This Court finds substance in the submission that the impugned directions have no bearing on the presently concluded selection. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that the result of REET-2021 is not an end in itself but operates as an eligibility qualification for recruitment of primary teachers and other avenues in the Education Department. Any alteration in the result of REET-2021, even qua a single question, would therefore have a cascading impact upon candidates whenever the REET certificate is pressed into service in subsequent selection processes.

4. In such circumstances, while the present appointments may not stand altered, the correctness of the impugned judgment, whereby the learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petitions and directed reconsideration of Question No.79 (Hindi) by a different expert committee, would have significant bearing upon the rights of candidates in future selections. Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in interfering to the extent of one question, therefore, requires examination in appeal.

5. This Court upon hearing such submissions and particularly, considering the statement made by learned Advocate General that is satisfied that admission of the matter is necessary to examine certainty and uniformity in application of the REET-2021 result in subsequent recruitment processes.

6. Admit. No need to issue fresh notices.

7. List the matter for final hearing.

8. Stay petitions are disposed of. Interim order already granted is confirmed.

(SANDEEP TANEJA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

60-61-nirmala/-