Non v. State of Rajasthan through its Secretary to the

Judgment

1. State of Rajasthan through its Secretary to the Government, Government of Rajasthan, Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh.

Ashok S/o Shri Premshankar, Teacher Grade-III through Block Primary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Nimbaheda, District Chittorgarh.

4. Moolchand S/o Shri Mali Ram, Teacher Grade-III through Block Primary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Arnod, District Chittorgarh.

5. Shivnarayan S/o Shri Nana Lal, Teacher Grade-III through Block Primary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Chhoti Sadri, District Chittorgarh. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal with Mr. Devanshu Agrawal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash MAthur, AAG with Mr. Saurabh Sharma [2025:RJ-JP:38328] (2 of 9) [WMAP-149/2018] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 18/09/2025

1. By way of this miscellaneous application, a prayer has been made to recall the order dated 30.01.2017 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4942/2004 to the extent it declared that petitioner No.2 was not interested in pursuing the litigation on account of being already appointed.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner/applicant-Satyaveer Singh filed the above S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4942/2004 along with two other petitioners namely, Sri Ram & Jitendra Singh. The aforesaid writ petition was decided on merits vide judgment dated

30.01.2017. However, since in the meanwhile the petitioner No.3, Jitendra Singh, was appointed elsewhere through R.P.S.C., therefore, he was not interested in pursuing the writ petition and, accordingly, the statement was made with regard to the petitioner No.3-Jitendra Singh that he did not want to press the writ petition. However, on account of bona fide mistake and error, the same statement was also recorded in respect of petitioner No.2/applicant, whereas he was nowhere appointed by that time and was quite keen to pursue his writ petition on merits.

3. It was submitted that the case of petitioner No.1-Sri Ram and the petitioner/applicant-Satyaveer Singh is identical in nature for the reason that both of them were denied appointment earlier on account of raising doubts over the veracity of B.Ed. degree acquired by them from Magadh University, Bodhgaya. An FIR was lodged in respect of such degrees where an investigation was conducted and a final report was given by the police. [2025:RJ-JP:38328] (3 of 9) [WMAP-149/2018]

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant has sought indulgence of this Court over one report dated 11.07.2003 (Annexure-4 of the writ petition), in order to show that even the police authorities, after investigation, submitted a report before the trial Court with a result that no case as alleged in the FIR was made out against the petitioner No.1-Sri Ram as well as against the petitioner/applicant-Satyaveer Singh. In the said report, it was also categorically mentioned that their mark-sheets were found to be genuine and correct.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant further submits that earlier judgment dated 30.01.2017 also refers to one letter dated 06.05.2000 issued by the Controller of the Examination, Magadh University, Bodhgaya, in order to point out that the degrees obtained by the petitioner No.1-Sri Ram, were genuine.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant highlights that in the very same letter dated 06.05.2000, there is a similar reference with regard to petitioner/applicant also, that his degrees were verified by the Controller of Examination and have found to be genuine.

7. By referring the aforesaid documents and facts, learned counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that as his case is quite similar to that of petitioner No.1-Sri Ram, who has been granted benefit of the judgment dated 30.01.2017, by appointing him on the post of Teacher Gr.III vide order dated 23.01.2018 by making compliance of the judgment dated 30.01.2017, therefore, he also seeks similar relief which could not be granted to him at that point of time only on the account of bona fide error crept into the order [2025:RJ-JP:38328] (4 of 9) [WMAP-149/2018] dated 30.01.2017, where it was recorded that the petitioner No.2 has not pressed the petition on account of being appointed already.

8. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant that the petitioner/applicant participated in the same recruitment process as 'General' category candidate and secured 63.09% marks, whereas the marks secured by the last selected candidate in the general category was 56.22% marks.

9. It was submitted that earlier also one S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No.149/2018 was filed by the petitioner/applicant before this Court, in order to recall the order dated 30.01.2017, which was allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.04.2018, and relief was granted to the petitioner. The aforesaid order dated 26.04.2018 was challenged by the State by way of filing D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1076/2019 which was disposed of by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, setting aside the order dated

26.04.2018 and the matter was remitted back for fresh decision by the Single Bench.

10. It has also been submitted that the judgment dated

30.01.2017 passed by the Single Bench by way of filing D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.122/2018 was unsuccessfully challenged by the State and vide order dated 08.03.2018, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.122/2018 was disposed of with the observation that the judgment has already been implemented, however, shall not be treated as precedent. [2025:RJ-JP:38328] (5 of 9) [WMAP-149/2018]

11. Learned Additional Advocate General while opposing the application submits that the instant matter is related to the recruitment of the year 1998 and by this time all the vacancies have been filled up by the State. Hence, no relief as prayed by the petitioner/applicant can be granted. It has also been submitted that when the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.122/2018 has directed that the judgment of a Single Judge dated 30.01.2017 shall not be treated as a precedent, therefore, no benefit can be taken by the petitioner by referring to his case as similar to petitioner No.1, who was granted relief vide judgment dated 30.01.2017.

12. It has also been submitted that by now the petitioner/applicant has attained the age of 54 years, therefore, even otherwise he is not eligible for being appointed to the post of Teacher Gr.-III as he has crossed the age bar as mentioned in the Rules.

13. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

14. While deciding the D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1076/2019, the Division Bench of this Court remitted the matter back to the Single Bench only for the reason that there were no findings in the order dated 26.04.2018 to show that the case of the petitioner/applicant was similar to that of the petitioner No.1-Sri Ram.

15. In the light of the observations made in the aforesaid order dated 17.07.2019, on perusal of the record it has come out that reasons for denying appointment to the petitioner/applicant- Satyaveer Singh as well as petitioner No.1-Sri Ram, was similar, [2025:RJ-JP:38328] (6 of 9) [WMAP-149/2018] that both of them had obtained degrees of B.Ed. from the same University i.e. Magadh University, Bodhgaya and question with regard to veracity of degress obtained by both the persons from the same University was put to question and even FIR was also lodged.

16. It is also evident from the record that while verification was made with regard to degrees of both petitioner No.1-Sri Ram as well as petitioner/applicant-Satyaveer from Magadh University, Bodhgaya, by issuing letter dated 06.05.2000 addressing to the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh, in respect of petitioner No.1-Sri Ram and the petitioner/applicant- Satyaveer Singh. A categorical statement has been given in the letter dated 06.05.2000 that degrees of both the above persons are genuine.

17. Similarly, even the police authorities have submitted the report before the learned trial Court on 11.07.2003, in respect of petitioner No.1-Sri Ram as well as the petitioner/applicant- Satyaveer Singh that no criminal case was made out against them and their mark-sheets were also genuine.

18. In the light of aforesaid comparison of facts between petitioner No.1-Sri Ram as well as the petitioner/applicant- Satyaveer Singh, when the findings earlier given by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 30.01.2017 are examined, it is found that the aforesaid judgment is also based upon the letter dated 06.05.2000 issued by the Magadh University, Bodhgaya, as well as on report submitted by the police authorities. [2025:RJ-JP:38328] (7 of 9) [WMAP-149/2018]

19. In the aforesaid judgment also it has been recorded that the petitioner No.1-Sri Ram had secured more marks than the cut-off marks in the respective category and similarly the petitioner/applicant-Satyaveer Singh has also got more than the cut-off marks in 'General' category. In view of above, it is clear that the case of petitioner No.1-Sri Ram as well as petitioner/applicant-Satyaveer Singh are exactly similar. However, relief could not have been granted to the petitioner/applicant only on account of bonafide misrecording of the statement that he had already been appointed, hence, was not interested in pursuing the writ petition which was factually erroneous.

20. So far as the objection raised by learned Additional Advocate General that vide order dated 08.03.2018 passed by the Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.122/2018, it has been observed that the judgment dated 30.01.2017 shall not be treated as precedent; suffice it to observe that the petitioner/applicant is not a stranger to the Writ Petition No. 4942/2004 in which the judgment dated 30.01.2017 was passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and admittedly he was also co-petitioner and only on account of erroneous recording of incorrect statement he was deprived of the relief granted to his co-petitioner. Therefore, notwithstanding the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court in order dated 08.03.2018 for not treating the judgment as precedent, it would not debar the petitioner/applicant from taking the benefit of the said judgment, more particularly when in his own case where after earlier order dated 26.04.2018 passed by the Single Judge in the miscellaneous application, on filing of the D.B. Special Appeal by the State [2025:RJ-JP:38328] (8 of 9) [WMAP-149/2018] bearing No.1076/2019, the Division Bench has remitted the matter back to this Court for fresh consideration by giving observations that the similarity between the petitioner No.1-Sri Ram and petitioner/applicant-Satyaveer Singh ought to have been considered. Hence, in view of above, the objections raised by the learned Additional Advocate General is not tenable.

21. As regards, further objections raised by the learned Additional Advocate General in respect of recruitment initiated in the year 1998, vacancies were filled up long back. It is relevant to note that in compliance of the judgment dated 30.01.2017, appointment has been given the petitioner No.1-Sri Ram by the respondents on 23.01.2018 i.e., after around 20 years from the date of initiation of recruitment process. Under these circumstances, when the petitioner No.1-Sri Ram has been granted appointment ignoring the vacancy position, the same cannot be denied to the petitioner/applicant only for the reason that earlier on account of bona fide mistake, the judgment dated

30.01.2017 could not be read in his favour.

22. Thus, equality before law makes it obligatory for the respondents to extend the same benefit to similarly situated persons without raising any hyper-technical objection.

23. In view of foregoing discussions, the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner/applicant-Satyaveer Singh is allowed. The judgment dated 30.01.2017 is recalled to the extent, it recorded that the petitioner/applicant was not interested in pursuing the litigation on account of being already appointed.

24. Consequently, it is hereby declared that the judgment dated 30.01.2017 shall be treated as equally applicable even in [2025:RJ-JP:38328] (9 of 9) [WMAP-149/2018] the case of petitioner/applicant-Satyaveer Singh also and same benefits as granted to petitioner No.1-Sri Ram shall also be granted to the petitioner/applicant. Necessary compliance be made within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

25. Ordered accordingly. DAKSH-Jatin/3 (ANAND SHARMA),J