[2026:RJ-JP:10438-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18138/2022 Sugar Singh Jatav S/o Shri Natholi Ram Jatav, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Akhawara, Post Shekhpura, Tehsil Todabheem, District Karauli Applicant Apply The Post Of Chowkidar, Of Military Engineering Service Defence Pune.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, To The Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Defence, Sena Bhawan, South Block, New Delhi.

2. Chief Engineer, Military Engineering Service, Southern Command, Sir Manekji Mehta Marg, Puni-411001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.P. Mathur.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order

12/03/2026 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Tribunal’) whereby the original application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed.

The learned Tribunal while dismissing the original application filed on behalf of the petitioner observed as under:-

“5. After going through the pleadings and hearing the arguments, it is clear that the applicant is questioning the selection process which happened in the year 2012. The purpose of the OA appears to be mainly fishing for information to find out whether he can find something to challenge the selection process. The applicant has not made any of the selected persons (about whom he did have the information, and at whose cost he wants to get selected) as parties in this case, and thus the case, prima facie, suffers from non-rejoinder of the necessary parties. The applicant has only made a very vague claim in his OA, without any proof, about selection of persons less meritorious than him. There is nothing produced along with the OA to support this claim, except a certificate of experience. The claim made in the merit and a third person (Ex-Serviceman) should not have been selected on account of his age, is clearly calculated to get him into the select list of 6 SC candidates (despite being originally placed 9th in the merit list). Such exercise, without Joining at least these 3 persons as parties, is obviously an attempt to somehow make a case where none exists. We notice that the respondents have already shown one person in the list of SC persons, not counted against the SC list on account of his being in the General merit (Anand Bhimrao Murkute at Annexure R/6). We have no reason to suspect that they have not followed this principle while making the whole list. The respondents have categorically stated to have made the lists strictly following the policies and rules relating to reservations as per the roaster. Even if, for the sake of arguments, it was to be accepted that these two persons (Sachin Wani and Vikram More) should not have been counted against the SC vacancies, the applicant still fails to get into the select list, as he is at the 9th position. The respondents have stated that the selection process has been completed. Though the applicant has pointed out some other apparent errors (e.g.in the age of Ex-Serviceman candidates, including a mistake about the applicant's own age) in the list produced by the respondents, such mistakes, alone, do not strengthen the case for selection of the applicant, which must stand on its own legs.

6. For all these reasons, we are unable to accept the We are unable prayers for relief made in this OA. The OA, being devoid of merit, is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.”

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondents did not supply copies of certain documents, which resulted in delay in filing the Original Application.

Counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record and find that the recruitment in questio