✦ High Court of India · 13 Aug 2025

Posted At Regional Office, Banswara Presently Residing v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of

Case Details High Court of India · 13 Aug 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

13 Aug 2025

Bench

Not available

Length

17,796 words

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Constitution of India

Cited in this judgment

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Environment, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, (Raj.).

2. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its Chairman, Head Quarter, 4, Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, (Raj.).

3. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its Member Secretary, Head Quarter, 4, Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, (Raj.).

4. The Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection (Ibps), Through Its Director, Ibps House, 90 Feet, Dp Road, Thakur Complex, Off. Western Express Highway, Kandiwali (E), Mumbai 400101.

5. Piyush Sharma S/o L.n. Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of 54, Near Raghunath Temple, Niwaru, Jhotwara, Jaipur, (Raj.). Roll No. 1110012358.

6. Lakhpat Singh Meena S/o Shri Hareti Lal Meena, Aged [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (3 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] About 29 Years, Resident Of Village Kundali, Post Gandal, Tehsil Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur, (Raj.). Roll No. 1110010963.

7. Nikhil Choubisa S/o Shri Nand Kishor Gothalker, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of 185, Mathugamda Road, Bhuneshwari Colony, Dungarpur, (Raj.). Roll No.

8. Purushottam Kumawat S/o Mahesh Kumawat, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Barkhera, Post Pillo, District Pratapgarh, (Raj.). Roll No. 1410001618.

9. Rakesh Meena, Junior Environmental Engineer Presently Posted At Regional Office, Kota. Roll No. 1110010605.

10. Ajay Bhatt, Junior Environmental Engineer (Jee) Presently Posted At Regional Office, Banswara. Roll No.

1410001605. ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 120/2025

1. Saloni Meena D/o Shri Phattu Lal Meena, Aged About 28 Years, Junior Scientific Officer (Jso), Headquarters, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Jaipur Presently Residing At Village- Charanwas, Post-Dudhly, Tehsil-Bassi, Jaipur, 303301. Roll No. 1110004739.

2. Shikha Meena D/o Shri Naresh Kumar Meena, Aged About 26 Years, Junior Scientific Officer (Jso), Headquarters, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Jaipur Presently Residing At Type-4-105/c Anupratap Colony Rawatbhata District Chittorgarh 323307. Roll No. 1110006183. ----Appellants Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, (Raj.).

2. Department Of Environment And Forests, Through Its Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, (Raj.).

3. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its Chairman, Head Quarter, 4, Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, (Raj.). [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (4 of 60) [SAW-119/2025]

4. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its Member Secretary, Head Quarter, 4, Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, (Raj.).

5. The Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection (Ibps), Through Its Director, Ibps House, 90 Feet, Dp Road, Thakur Complex, Off. Western Express Highway, Kandiwali (E), Mumbai 400101.

Anisha Chanda D/o Shri Kailash Chandra Meena, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Plot No. 17, Ambedkar Colony, Ashokpura, Sodala, Jaipur, (Raj.). Roll No. 1110005455. ----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 121/2025

1. Pavan Kumar Sharma S/o Shyam Lal Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Bhalo Ki Dhani, Village-Chonp, Tehsil-Amber District-Jaipur (303805) (Merit No 27) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Jaipur (South), 8/263, Malviya Nagar, Behind Renault Showroom, Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur (Rajasthan) -

2. Mithlesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Lalluram Meena, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of B -25,tapovan Vihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur-302017.(Merit No 46) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Head Office Jaipur, 4, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302004.

3. Krishan Meena S/o Bharat Lal Meena, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Kherla Khurd, Po Kherla Khurd, District Dausa, Rajasthan 303504.(Merit No 53) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Sirohi Plot No 68, Shanti Nagar, Main Highway Road, Sirohi (Rajasthan) - 307001

4. Hariyali Boliwal D/o Devi Lal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Dev Ashirwad, Out Of Marugate, Amet (Rajsamand).(Merit No 48) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Sirohi, Plot No 68, Shanti Nagar, Main Highway Road, Sirohi (Rajasthan) - 307001. [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (5 of 60) [SAW-119/2025]

5. Lalit Kumar S/o Shri Mansingh, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village Nagla Gulabi, Post Pipla, Tehsil And District Bharatpur, Pin Code 321021.(Merit No 1) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Bharatpur (Rajasthan), Behind Of Jindal Hospital, Shyama Prasad Mukharjee Nagar, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) -

6. Meenu Choudhary D/o Shri Rameshawarlal Choudhary, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Kalwaniya Kidhani, Bobas, Jaipur 303338.(Merit No 12) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Head Office Jaipur, 4, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Rajasthan) -

7. Deepak Saini S/o Shiv Lalsaini, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Behind Shyam Mandir, Tasing Road, Mohalla Jaitpura, Behror, District -Kotputali -Behror Pincode

301701.(Merit No 15) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Bhiwadi, Rico Industrial Area, Phase- Ii, Phool Bagh Chowk, Bhiwadi (Rajasthan) -

8. Neeraj Khinchi S/o Ramnarayan Khinchi, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Khatik Mohalla, Jobner, Teh- Phulera, Jaipur (303328)(Merit No 14) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Jaipur (North), Opposite Road No 5, Vishwakarma Industrial Area (Vki), Sikar Road, Jaipur, (Rajasthan) - 302012.

9. Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Bhera Ram, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Vill- Goliyavida, Post Richholi, Teh. Pachpadra, Dist- Balotra, Barmer.(Merit No 35) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Balotra, Infront Of Jvvnl Office, Jasol Fanta, Nakoda Ji Road, Balotra (Rajasthan) - 344024.

10. Rakesh Jangir S/o Shree Ramlal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Padampura, Post- Bhojpur Tehsil- Khandela, Dist.- Sikar, Rajasthan. (Merit No 3) Currently [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (6 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Sikar, Shiv- Singhpura, Housing Board Colony, Nawalgarh Road, Sikar (Rajasthan) - 332001.

11. Sushila Labana D/o Shri Hariram Labana, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Mukam Post- Mada, Mandirfala, Tehsil- Gamri, District- Dungarpur (314001). (Merit No 45) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Banswara, Choudhary Campus, Near Durga Petrol Pump, Dahod Road, Thikariya, Banswara, (Rajasthan) - 327001.

12. Kiran Kumari Vaishnav D/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Vaishnav, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village And Post - Bhonra Tehsil Digod, District - Kota Pin Code 325208 (Merit No 17) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Kota, Spl - 2A, Road No. 6, Indrapasth Industrial Area, Kota (Rajasthan) - 324003.

13. Alka Sharma D/o Shri Ram Bharosi Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of In Front Of American Gate, R. K. Puram Colony, Achhnera Road, Bharatpur, Rajasthan (321001) (Merit No 10) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Bharatpur, Behind Of Jindal Hospital, Shyama Prasad Mukharjee Nagar, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) - 321001.

14. Jaya Panchal D/o Shiv Shakti Panchal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of In Front Of Badrinarayan Temple, Khairoad Nayapura, Kota(Raj.) Pin Code- 324001.(Merit No 29) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Bundi, Plot No. D-15, Near Ishwari Fruit Garden, New Colony, Bundi (Rajasthan) - 323001.

15. Adarsh Malav S/o Radheshyam Malav, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of H. No. 56C, Jawahar Colony, Jhalawar (Raj.) Pin Code-326001.(Merit No 32) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Jhalawar, Room No. 345 To,347, Mini Secretariat, Jhalawar (Rajasthan) - 326001. [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (7 of 60) [SAW-119/2025]

16. Sarthak Tiwari S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Tiwari Niwas, Kumharo Ke Bas Ki Main Road, Behind Pareek Bhawan, Ladnun (Didwana-Kuchaman) - 341306(Merit No 5) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Nagaur, First Floor, Sehkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., Nagaur (Rajasthan) - 341001.

17. Sakshi Yadav D/o Of Ram Singh Yadav, Aged About 26 Years, R/o P-26 Pawanpuri, Near Jamunapuri, Murlipura, Jaipur 302039. (Merit No 22) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Head Office Jaipur, 4, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302004.

18. Akanksha Sharma D/o Suresh Chand Sharma, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Chetram Colony, Station Road, Hindaun, Karauli 322230.(Merit No 36) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Sawai Madhopur, Plot No 14, 15, Meena Colony, Behind Jail, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) - 322001.

19. Seema Yadav, D/o Shankar Lal Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 32, Yadav Khera, Radha Kishanpura, Jaipur,

303701.(Merit No 28) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Head Office Jaipur, 4, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302004.

20. Seema Goswami D/o Manroop Singh Goswami, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 1242, Bhraman Chiktsaliye Ke Pass, Lunkaransar, Dist.-Bikaner, Rajasthan-334603.(Merit No 16) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Bikaner, Spl - 33, Phase-Ll, Bichwal Industrial Area, Bikaner (Rajasthan) - 334006.

21. Nirmala Kumari , D/o Harlal Singh Dhaka, Aged About 43 Years, R/o 60,purani Jatbasti , Goduka Bas ,mandawa ,dist Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan ,333704. (Merit No 58) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Jhunjhunu, C.p. 1/90, Raj Complex, 1St Floor, Riico Industrial Area, Phase-2, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) - [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (8 of 60) [SAW-119/2025]

22. Neelam Shah D/o Manoj Kumar Shah, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Sanjay Bhawan And Restaurant, Behind Post Office, Rajasthan Patrika Road, Industrial Estate, Kota. District - Kota (Rajasthan), Pin Code- 324007.(Merit No 19) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Jhalawar, Room No. 345 To 347, Mini Secretariat, Jhalawar (Rajasthan) - 326001.

23. Piyush Jain S/o Manoj Jain, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Shiv Colony, Meena Seemla, Balaji, Udaipura, Dausa, Rajasthan, Pin Code - 303509.(Merit No 18) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Jaipur (South), 8/263, Malviya Nagar, Behind Renault Showroom, Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur (Rajasthan) -

24. Rishabh Charan S/o Devi Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o E-40, Rajbhawan Campus, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Pin Code -302006.(Merit No 31) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Kishangarh, Sp-2, Phase-5, Riico Industrial Area, Madanganj, Kishangarh (Rajasthan) - 305801.

25. Anjali Upadhyay W/o Vivek Kumar Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o B-36 Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur Pin Code-

321001.(Merit No 13) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Sawal Madhopur, Plot No 14, 15, Meena Colony, Behind Jail, Sawal Madhopur (Rajasthan) -322001.

26. Dalpat Singh S/o Bhoorsingh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Bhoorsingh, Langera, Po- Langera, District- Barmer, Rajasthan. Pin Code-344001. (Merit No 23) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Uso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Balotra, Infront Of Jvvnl Office, Jasol Fanta, Nakoda Ji Road, Balotra (Rajasthan) - 344024.

27. Pawan Kumar S/o Omprakash, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo- Pandusar, Tehsil -Nohar, District -Hanumangarh, [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (9 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] Rajasthan-335523.(Merit No 44) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Iso) At Rajasthan' State Pollution Control Board, Head Office Jaipur, 4, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302004.

28. Rahul Basanwal S/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Bhadach, Agar, Thanagazi, Alwar 301027. (Merit No 42) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Alwar, D-Block, Ambedkar Nagar, Alwar (Rajasthan) - 301030.

29. Harish Parihar S/o Shri K R Parihar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o J-Ist Street No-2, House No-564, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi, Delhi-110080.(Merit No 20) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Balotra, Infront Of Jvvnl Office, Jasol Fanta, Nakoda Ji Road, Balotra (Rajasthan) -

30. Prabhdeep Kaur D/o Inderjeet Singh Bal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 555, Zinc Smelter Chouraha Debari, Udaipur, Pin Code- 313024. (Merit No 8) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Udaipur, F/470, Madri Industrial Area, Udaipur (Rajasthan) - 313001.

31. Ravi Kumar Meena S/o Ramphool Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 31 Ambika Colony Near Airport Sanganer Jaipur 302029.(Merit No 54) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Chittorgarh, Near Fci Godown, Chanderia, Chittorgarh (Rajasthan) - 312001.

32. Pradeep Kumar S/o Gena Ram Gosai, Aged About 27 Years, R/o - V/p Phagliya, Fagliya, Tehsil- Serwa, District Barmer 344706.(Merit No 43) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Iso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Jaisalmer, Field Hostel Of Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna Residential Colony, Jaisalmer (Rajasthan) - 345001.

33. Prashant Lakhawat S/o Surendra Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o V/p Rendari Tehsil Sojat City Dist. Pali, Rajasthan (306103) (Merit No 7) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (10 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] Control Board, Regional Office Pali, Sa-6, Mandia Road Industrial Area, Pali (Rajasthan) - 306401.

34. Sanjay Verma S/o Bhanwar Lal Verma, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Plot No. 212, Mishra Colony, Phulera, Jaipur, Rajasthan(Merit No 38) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Head Office Jaipur, 4, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302004.

35. Shivani Nagar D/o Nemichand Nagar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Hani Hera, Baran- 325219(Merit No 11) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Bundi, Plot No. D-15, Near Ishwari Fruit Garden, New Colony, Bundi (Rajasthan) - 323001.

36. Narendra Kumar Yadav S/o Bajranglal Yadav, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 51, Dagaro Ki Dhani, Dambaka Bass, Alisar, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Merit No 21) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Jaipur (North), Opposite Road No 5, Vishwakarma Industrial Area (Vki), Sikar Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302012.

37. Ritu Bhardwaj D/o Mahesh Sharma, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Mahaveer Nagar Nearby Gov. Dispensary Kota. (Merit No 55) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Kota, Spl - 2A, Road No. 6, Indrapasth Industrial Area, Kota (Rajasthan) - 324003.

38. Puneet Kumar S/o Vinod Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Jorkiyan 83 Lnp, The. Padampur, Dist. Sri Ganganagar, 335041(Merit No 33) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Hanumangarh, Plot No. 52, Sector 9/1, Hanumangarh Junction, Hanumangarh (Rajasthan) - 335512.

39. Gunjan Saini C/o Ramchandra Saini, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village -Kherla, Post Narher , District - Jhunjhunu (Merit No 59) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Sikar, Shiv- Singhpura, Housing Board Colony, Nawalgarh Road, Sikar [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (11 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] (Rajasthan) - 332001.

40. Deepak Jeliya S/o Jitendra Jeliya, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 31, Mahaveer Nagar 1St, Ranthambore Circle, Sawai Madhopur, 322001(Merit No 50) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Head Office Jaipur, 4, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302004.

41. Varsha Kala D/o Kartar Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 31 B, Modi Nagar Purani Chungi Ajmer Road Jaipur- 302019 (Merit No 41) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Head Office Jaipur, 4, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302004.

42. Ritu Sharma D/o Bhanu Prakash Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 41, Sindhi Colony, Jaljog Circle, Jodhpur(Merit No 9) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Jodhpur, Spl-2, Phase-I, Marudhar Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) - 342001.

43. Kavita Charan D/o Arjun Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Chaupasni Charanan Mathania Jodhpur Rajasthan - 342305 (Merit No 6) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Jodhpur, Spl-2, Phase-I, Marudhar Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) -

44. Jitendra Saraswat S/o Ram Kishore Saraswat, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Devaliya, Banar, Jodhpur 342027(Merit No 4) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Jodhpur, Spl-2, Phase-I, Marudhar Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) -

45. Saloni Meena D/o Shri Phattu Lal Meena, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village- Charanwas, Post-Dudhly, Tehsil-Bassi, Jaipur, 303301(Merit No 47) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Head Office Jaipur, 4, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302004. [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (12 of 60) [SAW-119/2025]

46. Shikha Meena D/o Shri Naresh Kumar Meena, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Type-4-105/c Anupratap Colony Rawatbhata District Chittorgarh 323307.(Merit No 34) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Head Office Jaipur, 4, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302004. ----Appellants Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, (Raj.).

2. Additional Chief Secretary, Forest Environment and Climate Change Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) – 302005.

3. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its Chairman, Head Quarter, 4, Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, (Raj.).

4. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its Member Secretary, Head Quarter, 4, Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, (Raj.).

5. The Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection (Ibps), Through Its Director, Ibps House, 90 Feet, Dp Road, Thakur Complex, Off. Western Express Highway, Kandiwali (E), Mumbai 400101.

6. Geetanjali Vajpayee D/o Chandra Prakash Vajpayee, W/o Vishal Mishra, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 38, House No. 152, Kiran Path, Madhyam Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 302020.

7. Astha Malik D/o R.s. Malik And W/o Sandeep Rathi, Aged About 38 Years, R/o House No. 45, Zone 92, Sector-9, Durga Path, Patel Marg, Agarwal Farm, Mansaorvar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 302020.

8. Akshay Bhardwaj S/o Ramvatar Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Badiyawala Road, Chugalpura, Indragarh, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302027.

9. Subhash Chandra (Merit No: 2) currently appointed as Junior Scientific Officer (JSO) at Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office: Hanumangarh, Plot No. [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (13 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] 52, Sector 9/1, Hanumangarh Junction, Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)-335512.

10. Uma Choudhary (Merit No: 24) currently appointed as Junior Scientific Officer (JSO) at Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office: Jaipur, 4, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Rajasthan)-

11. Arun Prajapat (Merit No: 26) currently appointed as Junior: Scientific Officer (JSO) at Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office: Rajsamand, Old Building of District Excise Office, Kalalwati, Rajnagar, Rajsamand (Rajasthan)- 313324.

12. Amitabh Singh Rooppura (Merit. No: 30) currently appointed as Junior Scientific’ Officer (JSO) at Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office: Nagaur, First Floor, Sehkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., Nagaur (Rajasthan)-341001.

13. Ritesh Kanwar Chandra (Merit No: 37) currently appointed as Junior Scientific Officer (JSO) at Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office: Jaipur, 4, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302004.

14. Anjali (Merit No: 39) currently appointed as Junior Scientific Officer (JSO) at Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office: Rajsamand, Old Building of District Excise Office, Kalalwati, Rajnagar, Rajsamand (Rajasthan)-313324.

15. Sanjay Kumar Bairwa (Merit No: 40) currently appointed as Junior Scientific Officer (JSO) at Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office: Bhiwadi, RIICO Industrial Area, Phase-II, Phool Bagh Chowk, Bhiwadi (Rajasthan)-301019.

16. Ankit Bairwa (Merit No: 49) currently appointed as Junior Scientific Officer (JSO) at Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office: Chittorgarh, Near FCI Godown, Chanderia, Chittorgarh (Rajasthan) 312001.

17. Ajay Kumar Meena (Merit No: 52) currently appointed as Junior Scientific Officer (JSO) at Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office: Bhilwara, 18, Near Pannadhaya Circle, Azad Nagar, Bhilwara (Rajasthan)-

311001. [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (14 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] ----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 122/2025

1. Jai Kumar Sharma S/o Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, Address-Village And Post Bhateri, Tehsil - Tunga, District Jaipur 303004.

2. Seema W/o Shri Ajay Singh Gurjar, Aged About 46 Years, Address 139, Aasind Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Sanganer, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 302029 ----Appellants Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Secretary, Forest Environment And Climate Change Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its Chairman, 4, Jhalana, Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its Member Secretary, 4, Jhalana, Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. The Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection (Ibps), Through Its Director, Ibps House, 90 Feet, D.p. Road, Thakur Complex, Opp. Western Express Highway, Kandiwali (E), Mumbai.

5. Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

6. Rajgopal S/o Shri Dwarke Prasad, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Paota, Via Chapri Khurd, District Didwana Kuchman, Rajasthan.

7. Ritesh Kanwar D/o Shri Vijay Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vpo Singhasan, Via Piprali, District Sikar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

8. Ankit Bairwa S/o Shri Ramgopal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Kohani, Chipp Barod, District Baran, Rajasthan.

9. Subhash S/o Shri Mohanlal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward No. 03, P.o. Bhopalpura, 1 Lm, Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

10. Narpat Surela S/o Kishori Lal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Kumharo Ka Mohalla, Tehsil Bansur, Alwar, (Raj.). [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (15 of 60) [SAW-119/2025]

301402. ----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 123/2025 Priti Kanwar D/o Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Junior Environmental Engineer (Jee), Regional Officer, Bikaner, Presently Residing At Ward No. 13 Loha, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan. Roll No. 1110013675. Versus ----Appellant

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, (Raj.).

2. Department Of Environment And Forests, Through Its Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, (Raj.).

3. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its Chairman, Head Quarter, 4, Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, (Raj.).

4. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its Member Secretary, Head Quarter, 4, Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, (Raj.).

5. The Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection (Ibps), Through Its Director, Ibps House, 90 Feet, Dp Road, Thakur Complex, Opp. Western Express Highway, Kandiwali (E), Mumbai 400101.

6. Arti Modi D/o Shri Sunil Kumar Modi, W/o Shri Yash Maheshwari, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of 101, Giriraj Kripa, Station Road, Gulabpura, Bhilwara, Rajasthan. Roll No. 1410001309. ----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 124/2025

1. Manoj Kumar Saini S/o Shri Jitendra Kumar Saini, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Neem Ka Thana Road, Kanwat Khandela, Sikar-332708

2. Kanhaya Lal Kumawat S/o Shri Jamana Lal Kumawat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vill. Khootiya Khera, Teh. Raipur, District - Bhilwara, Pin Code - 311805

3. Rohit Singh S/o Shri Shyam Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Bada Mohalla, Ward Number- 17, Pucca Talab, [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (16 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] Kumher, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, Pin-321201

4. Chetan Jangir S/o Shri Ram Chandra Jangir, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Plot No. 2, Anuradha Colony, Housing Board, District -Jhalawar. (326001)

5. Mahendra Solanki S/o Shri Kishan Ram Solanki, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 396, Banjara Nagar Ke Piche Naya Gaon, Pali- Tehsil- Pali And District- Pali.

6. Ganesh Godara S/o Shree Heera Ram Godara, Aged About 30 Years, Village- Baytuchimanji, Tehsil- Baytu, Dist-Balotra

7. Archana Dhakar D/o Shri Rameshwar Lal Dhakar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Begun Road, Village- Kanera, Teh.- Nimbahera And Distt.- Chittorgarh.

8. Anjana D/o Shri Girraj Meena, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village And Post Mahaswa, Tehsil Todabhim, District- Karauli, 322220.

9. Radheshyam Swami S/o Shri Bajrang Lal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Megh Ji Ki Badi, Ward No. 5, Bidasar, Churu, Rajasthan 331501.

10. Sheetal Barwar D/o Shri Bhinya Ram Barwar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 39, Suryanagar, Teetardi, Udaipur, Rajasthan-313001.

11. Ankit Verma S/o Shri Pooranmal Verma, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ward No. 17, Jatav Mohalla, Govindgarh, Alwar, 301604, Rajasthan

12. Anjana Dagar S/o Shri Suresh Chand Dagar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo- Jindoli Tehsil- Mundawar, Alwar- 301404

13. Avinash Verma S/o Shri Hemraj Verma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Adarsh Prem Nagar Near Shivaji Colony, Baran District - Baran, 325205

14. Anshula Lawania D/o Shri Akhilesh Lawania, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Gopal Garh, Bharatpur (Rajasthan), Pin Code- 321001.

15. Akshita Morwal D/o Shri Ramesh Morwal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 100, Shri Ram Colony, Near Borkheda Police Station, Borkheda, Kota (Rajasthan), Pincode- 324001.

16. Mahendra Dewasi S/o Shree Ram, Aged About 25 Years, [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (17 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] Address - Raika Ka Bas, Dhanapa, District - Nagaur. Pin - 342902

17. Nidesh Kala S/o Gopilal Kala, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Govindpura Dhani Dalwasa, Post- Thanwala, Tehsil- Deoli, Tonk (Rajasthan) 304507.

18. Saurabh Kumar S/o Shri Ashok Kumar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o H. No. 171, Vpo Pacheri Kalan, Tehsil-Buhana, District- Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, 333515

19. Manoj Kumar Chopra S/o Shri Kalyan Sahay, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Shankar Colony, Shahpura, Jaipur 303103.

20. Jitendra Yadav S/o Shri Dhannalal Yadav, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Girdharipura, Post Mahalan, Tehsil Mauzamabad, Jaipur 303007.

21. Sunil Mehta S/o Shri Omprakash Yadav, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Sec-B, Dabla Road, Kashipuram Tehsil Kotputli, District- Kotputli-Behror, 303108

22. Safal Patidar S/o Shri Jagesh Patidar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village -Dingarkiya, Post-Mahura, Tehsil-Mavli, District -Udaipur

23. Ishrat Jahan D/o Shri Yusuf Khan, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Sipahiyon Ka Bas, Sojat City, Pali, Rajasthan, Pin - 306104

24. Ojasva Karwasara S/o Shri Surendra Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o A-267, Phase-2 Riico Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Pin Code-333001

25. Mahima Choudhary D/o Shri Shankar Lal Choudhary, Aged About 24 Years, Address- 16/212, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342008

26. Manisha Bishnoi D/o Shri Jetaram Bishnoi, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 92, Karni Nagar Basni First Phase, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342005 ----Appellants Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, (Raj.).

2. Department Of Environment And Forests, Through Its Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, (Raj.). [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (18 of 60) [SAW-119/2025]

3. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its Chairman, Head Quarter, 4, Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, (Raj.).

4. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its Member Secretary, Head Quarter, 4, Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, (Raj.).

5. The Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection (Ibps), Through Its Director, Ibps House, 90 Feet, Dp Road, Thakur Complex, Opp. Western Express Highway, Kandiwali (E), Mumbai 400101.

6. Preeti Kanwar, Junior Environment Engineer (Jee), Regional Office, Bikaner, Roll No. 1110013675.

7. Arti Modi D/o Shri Sunil Kumar Modi, W/o Shri Yash Maheshwari, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of 101, Giriraj Kripa, Station Road, Gulabpura, Bhilwara, Rajasthan. Roll No. 1410001309. ----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 125/2025

1. Pawan Kumar Sharma S/o Shyam Lal Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Bhalo Ki Dhani, Village- Chonp, Tehsil-Amber District-Jaipur (303805) (Merit No 27) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Jaipur (South), 8/263, Malviya Nagar, Behind Renault Showroom, Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302017.

7. Deepak Saini S/o Shiv Lalsaini, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Behind Shyam Mandir, Tasing Road, Mohalla Jaitpura, Behror, District -Kotputali -Behror Pincode

9. Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Bhera Ram, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Vill- Goliyavida, Post Richholi, Teh. Pachpadra, Dist- Balotra, Barmer.(Merit No 35) Currently [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (20 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Balotra, Infront Of Jvvnl Office, Jasol Fanta, Nakoda Ji Road, Balotra (Rajasthan) - 344024.

10. Rakesh Jangir S/o Shree Ramlal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Padampura, Post- Bhojpur Tehsil- Khandela, Dist.- Sikar, Rajasthan. (Merit No 3) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Sikar, Shiv- Singhpura, Housing Board Colony, Nawalgarh Road, Sikar (Rajasthan) - 332001.

19. Seema Yadav, D/o Shankar Lal Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 32, Yadav Khera, Radha Kishanpura, Jaipur,

25. Dr. Anjali Upadhyay W/o Vivek Kumar Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o B-36 Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur Pin Code-321001.(Merit No 13) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Sawal Madhopur, Plot No 14, 15, Meena Colony, Behind Jail, Sawal Madhopur (Rajasthan) -322001.

26. Dalpat Singh S/o Bhoorsingh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Bhoorsingh, Langera, Po- Langera, District- Barmer, [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (23 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] Rajasthan. Pin Code-344001. (Merit No 23) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Uso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Balotra, Infront Of Jvvnl Office, Jasol Fanta, Nakoda Ji Road, Balotra (Rajasthan) - 344024.

27. Pawan Kumar S/o Omprakash, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo- Pandusar, Tehsil -Nohar, District -Hanumangarh, Rajasthan-335523.(Merit No 44) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Iso) At Rajasthan' State Pollution Control Board, Head Office Jaipur, 4, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302004.

32. Pradeep Kumar S/o Gena Ram Gosai, Aged About 27 Years, R/o - V/p Phagliya, Fagliya, Tehsil- Serwa, District Barmer 344706.(Merit No 43) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Iso) At Rajasthan State Pollution [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (24 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] Control Board, Regional Office Jaisalmer, Field Hostel Of Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna Residential Colony, Jaisalmer (Rajasthan) - 345001.

33. Prashant Lakhawat S/o Surendra Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o V/p Rendari Tehsil Sojat City Dist. Pali, Rajasthan (306103) (Merit No 7) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Pali, Sa-6, Mandia Road Industrial Area, Pali (Rajasthan) - 306401.

43. Kavita Charan D/o Arjun Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Chaupasni Charanan Mathania Jodhpur Rajasthan - 342305 (Merit No 6) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Jodhpur, Spl-2, Phase-L, Marudhar Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) -

44. Jitendra Saraswat S/o Ram Kishore Saraswat, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Devaliya, Banar, Jodhpur 342027(Merit No 4) Currently Appointed As Junior Scientific Officer (Jso) At Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office Jodhpur, Spl-2, Phase-L, Marudhar Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) -

342005. [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (26 of 60) [SAW-119/2025]

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.

2. Additional Chief Secretary, Forest Environment And Climate Change Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, (Rajasthan)-302005.

3. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its Chairman, Head Quarter, 4, Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, (Rajasthan)-302004.

4. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its Member Secretary, Head Quarter, 4, Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, (Rajasthan)-302004.

5. The Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection (Ibps), Through Its Director, Ibps House, 90 Feet, Dp Road, Thakur Complex, Off. Western Express Highway, Kandiwali (E), Mumbai 400101.

6. Geetanjali Vajpayee D/o Chandra Prakash Vajpayee, Wife Of Vishal Mishra, Aged About 31 Years, Address Sector 38, House No. 152, Kiran Path, Madhyam Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 302020.

7. Astha Malik D/o R.s. Malik And Wife Of Sandeep Rathee, Aged About 38 Years, Address House No. 45, Zone 92, Sector-9, Durga Path, Patel Marg, Agarwal Farm, Mansaorvar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 302020. [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (27 of 60) [SAW-119/2025]

8. Akshay Bhardwaj Son Of Ramvatar Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, Address Badiyawala Road, Chugalpura, Indragarh, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302027.

9. Himanshi Sharma Daughter Of Ashok Kumar Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, Correspondence Address Plot No. 20, Radhakrishan Nagar, Mangyawas, Opposite Rajath Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302020.

10. Pawan Kumar Meghwal Son Of Basi Lal Meghwal, Aged About 28 Years, Correspondence Address 32, Taranagar, Manyawas, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302020

11. Nikhil Sone Of Karnail Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Correspondent Address House No. -11 Phase-Iii, Kalindi Colony, Near Uthan Rehabilitation Centre, Lal Dwara, Yamunanagar (Haryana)-135001.

12. Meenakshi Sharma Daughter Of Mahendra Kumar Sharma And Wife Of Chandresh Gautam, Aged About 36 Years, Correspondence Address 5-58, Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Kota, Rajasthan-324010.

13. Vedvyas Chaturvedi Son Of Tikam Chand Chaturvedi, Aged About 24 Years, Correspondence Address Village- Sesaripura, Post Saipur, Karauli, Rajasthan-322241.

14. Ankit Kumar Sharma Son Of Anil Kumar, Aged About 32 Years, Correspondence Address Ward No. 06, Hanumanpura, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-333704.

15. Sakshi Mahera Daughter Of Dilip Kumar Mahera, Aged About 27 Years, Correspondence Address Vaishali Nagar, Karauli, Rajasthan-322241. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman with Mr. Daksh Pareek, Mr. Ashish Kabra, Mr. Arjun Singh, Mr. Moin Khan & Mr. Keshav Parashar. Mr. Ajay Chaudhary. Mr. Himanshu Jain. Mr. Shovit Jhajharia. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG assisted by Ms. Anima Chaturvedi & Ms. Sakshi Bhardwaj. Mr. Sandeep Pathak with [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (28 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] Ms. Jaya Pathak for Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board. Mr. Saransh Saini with Ms. Abhilash Sharma & Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma. Mr. Tribhuvan Narayan Singh. Mr. Vishwanath Karan Rathore with Mr. Satya Prakash Sharma. Mr. Sukhdev Singh Solanki with Mr. Girraj Singh Solanki & Mr. Rituraj Soni. Mr. Himanshu Jain with Mr. Rishi Raj Maheshwari, Ms. Approva Agarwal, Mr. Yashraj Kumawat, Mr. Avinash Bhardwaj, Mr. Divyansh Choudhary & Mr. Jatin Sharma. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Judgment 13/08/2025

1. These appeals have been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby certain directions were issued to the official respondents to revise the results and prepare a fresh merit list in accordance with the directions contained in the judgment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2–Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) issued an advertisement dated 05.10.2023 holding recruitment for the posts of Law Officer-II (LO-II), Junior Scientific Officer (JSO), and Junior Environment Engineer (JEE). In pursuance thereof, all the appellants, along with the private respondents, applied for the said posts. The written examination for these posts was conducted by the Board on 09.01.2024. [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (29 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] Subsequently, provisional lists for document verification were issued on 22.02.2024 for the post of LO-II, on 23.02.2024 for the post of JSO, and on 24.02.2024 for the post of JEE. After verification of the documents of eligible candidates, appointment orders were issued for the post of LO-II on 06.03.2024, for the post of JSO on 08.03.2024 and for the post of JEE on 12.03.2024.

3. The private respondents herein (original writ petitioners) being aggrieved by their non-selection approached to the learned Single Judge by filing writ petitions. All the said writ petitions were decided by the learned Single Judge by a common order dated

20.12.2024 issuing certain directions to the official respondents to revise the results and prepare a fresh merit list in accordance with the directions contained in the judgment.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, the selected candidates have filed the present appeals for all the aforesaid three posts. It has been brought to our notice by the counsel appearing for the Board while hearing these appeals that in pursuance of the select list, the selected candidates have already joined their respective posts.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petitions are contrary to the record and unsustainable in law. Learned Senior Counsel further drew our attention to the specific findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 40, 47, and 51 of the impugned judgment, which read as under: – [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (30 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] “40. Thence, it can be concluded that once a committee is formulated as per the provisions of Rule 26 of the Rules and Regulations of 1993 under the Chairman- ship of the member Secretary, the present mechanism of direct recruitment through respondent-IBPS is valid and unerring.

47. In the same subject it is also noted that the minutes of the meeting undersigned by the concerned authorities are also furnished in a cursory manner, as the same are not heralded/preceded by any agenda, numbered or tendering justification qua the rationale so adopted. Nevertheless, the rules of carrying out business and execution were violated. Form the said action of the respondents it is prima facie assumed that the engagement of IBPS is a sheer attempt to overshadow the lapses violating the provisions of RTPP Act and allied provisions.

51. Albeit from the aforementioned discussions in paragraph no. 37 to 40 of the instant judgment it is elucidated that the direct recruitment in the matter in hand is valid; the respondents sans stating any justification have ousted the recruitment agencies/exam conducting authorities like RPSC, RSSB, MNIT and other agencies.”

6. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that while recording certain findings, the learned Single Judge travelled beyond the pleadings of the writ petitions. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge although has considered the provisions of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement (RTPP) Act, but in fact no such issue regarding RTPP Act was raised before the learned Single Judge. He also submitted that in paragraph No.50 of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge observed that the provisions of the Rajasthan Stamps Act were not followed while executing the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the recruitment agency, i.e., Institute of Banking Personnel [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (31 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] Selection (hereinafter referred to as ‘IBPS’), however, there was no such plea raised in the writ petitions. He also submitted that the respondents-writ petitioners failed to allege or establish any mala-fide against the IBPS in conducting the selection process. He further submitted that IBPS has conducted the recruitment examination through out the country also and it holds well established reputation of fairness and integrity. He further submitted that direction of the learned Single Judge for revisiting the selection process, according to the appellants, is contradictory and unsustainable. He also submits that, in compliance of the impugned order, the Board has been directed to revisit the selection process for all the three posts, however, none of the writ petitioners challenged the selection for the post of Law Officer-II, as such the directions issued for revisiting the selection process for the post of Law Officer-II are beyond the scope of the pleadings. He further submitted that the appellants who were selected for the post of Law Officer-II were not party to the writ proceedings, and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge behind their back directing for revisiting the selection process is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that there is no allegation of mala fide in any of the writ petitions either against the officers of the Board or against the recruitment agency, IBPS, therefore, it cannot be said that the selection process suffers with mala fide. He also submitted that once the private respondents-original writ petitioners participated in the selection process, they are estopped from challenging the outcome of the result and final selection after participating in the [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (32 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] same. He further submits that the equity lies in favour of the appellants, who were duly selected and have been serving on their respective posts for last one and a half years. He also submitted that the original petitioners did not challenge Clause No.11 of the advertisement nor they approached the Court immediately after issuance of the advertisement.

7. They further submits that the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Harkirat Singh Ghuman (supra) contains observations which are merely advisory in nature and cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.

8. In support of the contentions counsels relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of The Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board Vs. Saluvadi Sumalatha and Ors. reported in 2024 (4) SCC 336 where in para No.14, it has been held as under:- “14. Courts will have to be cautious and therefore slow in dealing with recruitment process adopted by the recruitment agency. A lot of thought process has gone into applying the Rules and Regulations. Merely because a recruitment agency is not in a position to satisfy the Court, a relief cannot be extended to a candidate deprived as it will have a cascading effect not only on the said recruitment of Respondent No. 2, but also to numerous others as well. In such view of the matter, courts are duty bound to take into consideration the relevant orders, Rules and enactments before finally deciding the case. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan,: (1990) 1 SCC 305 where it was held:

12. It will thus appear that apart from the fact that the High Court has rolled [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (33 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] the cases of the two appointees in one, though their appointments are not assailable on the same grounds, the court has also found it necessary to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the relative merits of the candidates. It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction.” (emphasis supplied)

9. They further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Police Sub Ordinate Service Commission and Ors. Vs. Ramesh Kumar and Ors. reported in 2019 (2) BBCJ 383, wherein para Nos.2 & 25, has held as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (34 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] “2. The learned Single Judge found favour with the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent-petitioners and held that in order to ensure a fair procedure in the examination, the question papers and model answers should be uploaded for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the candidates to raise objections. Issues were also raised with regard to the preliminary test as well and about the non-supply of the copies of the OMR sheets, as such, the examinations were vitiated. The learned Single Judge then formulated the questions to be answered in Paragraph 24 of the impugned judgment. If

25. We have considered the submissions raised and we are of the opinion that the appeals deserve to be allowed on more than one grounds. On the basis of the pleadings on record, we are satisfied that there was no material to point out any illegality or irregularity or lapse in the holding of the main there were written examinations. irregularities with regard to the preliminary examinations and the First Information Reports lodged in respect thereof, then if the learned Single Judge had any doubt, it was more appropriate to have decided the three writ petitions namely, C.W.J.C. Nos. 6057 of 2018, 6101 of 2018 and 6565 of 2018 simultaneously. The learned Single Judge chose to segregate the same and while delivering the impugned judgment, made an observation that this judgment shall not apply in relation to the preliminary examinations. With regard to the final written examinations, no foundational facts exist nor have they been discussed nor any finding recorded by the learned Single Judge as to how any prejudice has been caused to any of the candidates in respect of any question paper of the written examinations. Neither any allegations have been made to specify the same nor any finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge. In such a situation, to assume the existence of any unfairness on account of not uploading of key answers does not appear to be justified. Even otherwise, after the results are declared and the exams are over, it is always open to a candidate to clear his doubts by moving an application under the Right to Information Act in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Central Board of [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (35 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] Secondary Education and others Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, reported in: (2011) 8 SCC 497 for supply of the answer-books in order to raise any such grievance. Apart from this, the contention on behalf of the appellants that the respondent-petitioners cannot now question the procedure of examination also appears to be correct. It is only after the respondent-petitioners were unsuccessful in the main written examinations that they filed the writ petition. They did not raise a challenge either to the advertisement or to the holding of the examinations, presumably because, they were all successful in the preliminary examinations. It appears that had these respondent petitioners been successful in the written examinations also, they would not have challenged the procedure of examinations. Thus, after having become unsuccessful, they cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the procedure of examinations on the ground of unfairness, that too even without any relevant material in respect thereof as observed above, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) and Manish Kumar Shahi (supra). The learned Single Judge appears to have overlooked this aspect of the matter while proceeding to invoke the philosophy of fairness in the holding of examinations on the basis of the ratio of the judgments extracted in the impugned judgment. In our opinion, there was no occasion to have issued any such direction to the appellant Commission midway the selection process when there was no element of mala fide or infirmity established in holding of the main written examinations. The entire exercise is based on a mere apprehension and for introducing an element of fairness which otherwise does not appear to have been required at least on the facts of the present case.”

10. They further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Baldev Singh Vs. High Court of H.P. reported in 2017 Supreme (HP) 808, wherein para No.3, has held as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (36 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] “3. Moreover, the relevant Rules do not hold any prescription(s) vis-a-vis. the respondent being peremptorily enjoined to display the key answers in contemporaneity to display of result(s) of written test(s). Even if the aforesaid Rules do not exist, may be, the canon(s) of transparency(s) may yet enjoin the respondent concerned, to, make display(s) thereof especially in contemporaneity with the display of result(s) of written test, nonetheless, for this Court being enjoined to hold that hence there was no visible infraction vis-à-vis. canon(s) of transparency(s), yet enjoined erection of the apt relevant evidentiary strata, comprised in attribution of aforesaid active specific malafides, vis-à-vis. the evaluators. However, the aforesaid ascriptions with specific contours, are not ventilated in the writ petition, corollary whereof is that non-display of key answers significantly in contemporaneity with display of result(s) of written test, not negating validity(s) of the apt recruitment process(s) initiated by the respondent.”

11. They further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Rajashree J Ingin Vs. Gulbarga Institution of Medical Sciences and Ors., passed in Civil Appeal No.2236 of 2023, wherein para No.12, has held as under:- “12. With great respect, we are unable to find any justification or logic that the Division Bench of the High Court chose to upset the entire selection process while dealing with the grievance raised by the writ petitioner in relation to the selection process concerning the post of Professor in Microbiology. It needs hardly any emphasis that in the intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner Dr. Sunil Kumar Biradar, it would have been just and appropriate if the Division Bench of the High Court confined its consideration to the contentions as urged or sought to be urged by the contesting parties in relation to the selection process concerning the post of Professor in Microbiology. There was no justification whatsoever to issue any direction or even to make any observation in relation to [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (37 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] the other selection process/processes, which were not forming the subject-matter of the writ petition. Having taken note of the order as passed and directions as issued by the Division Bench of the High Court beyond the subject- matter of the appeal before it, we are impelled to observe that even when Article 226 of the Constitution of India confers plenary powers on the High Court to issue any writ order or direction to enforce any of the fundamental rights and for any other purpose, a writ petition concerning particular subject-matter and particular affected parties cannot be converted into a generalised litigation so as to upset any other existing state of affairs or existing legal rights. Putting it differently, in a matter which is not being dealt with as a public interest litigation, ordinarily, High Court cannot pass orders or issue directions regarding the matters that are not even under challenge.

12.1. From the array of parties, we have noticed that the appellants Dr. Umesh S.R. and Dr. Ajay Kumar G., who were not even the candidates for the post of Professor in Microbiology, were unnecessarily joined as respondents in the writ petition and the same array of parties was repeated before the Division Bench too. In our view, the said two persons were neither necessary nor even proper parties to the writ petition, as rightly conceded by the learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Significantly, the other appellant Dr. Rajashree J Ingin was not even a party to the writ petition. The Division Bench though made a cursory observation, about not dealing with the selection of other candidates who were not parties before it, yet proceeded to direct fresh selection process in relation to all the posts of professors. The approach of the Division Bench of the High Court in this matter could only be disapproved.

12.2. Therefore, the aforesaid three appeals, pertaining to the persons/appellants who were not the candidates in the selection process for the post of Professor in Microbiology, deserve to be allowed.” [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (38 of 60) [SAW-119/2025]

12. They further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arun Tewari and Ors. Vs. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh and Ors., reported in 1998 (2) SCC 332 wherein para No.15, has held as under:- “15. All the original applicants before the Tribunal who have challenged these provisions for recruitment of Assistance Teachers under the Operation Black Board Scheme did not possess the requisite qualifications for being selected under the said scheme as Assistant Teachers. Their names do not figure among the lists forwarded by the concerned District Employment Exchanges. Surprisingly, the applications field by all these persons and/or groups before the Tribunal did not make the Selected/appointed candidates who were directly affected by the outcome of their applications, as party respondents. The Tribunal has passed the impugned order without making them parties or issuing notice to any of them. The entire exercise is seriously distorted because of this omission. They have now filed the present appeals after they have been granted leave to file the appeals. In the case of Prabodh Verma and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.,: [1985]1SCR216 , this Court observed that in the case before them there was a serious defect of non-joinder of necessary parties and the only respondents to the Sangh's petition were the State of Uttar Pradesh and its concerned officers. The employees who were directly concerned were not made parties-not even by joining some of them in a representative capacity, considering that their number was too large for all of them to be joined individually as respondents. This Court observed that High court ought not have decided a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least some of them before it as respondents in a representative capacity. These observations apply with equal force here. The same view has been reiterated by this Court in Ishwar Singh and Ors. v. Kuldip Singh and Ors. , where the Court said that a writ petition challenging selection and appointments without impleading the selected candidates was not maintainable, (vide also J. [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (39 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] Jose Dhanapaul v. S. Thomas and Ors., : (1996)IILLJ646SC ). On this ground alone the decision of the Tribunal is vitiated. However, even on merit we do not find that the judgment of the Tribunal can be sustained.”

13. They further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rekha Sharma Vs. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and Ors., passed in Civil Appeal No.5051 of 2023 decided on 21.08.2024 wherein para No.16, has held as under:- “16. As well settled, the candidates who consciously took part in the process of selection cannot be permitted to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Respondents for making selection, on their having been declared as unsuccessful in the Preliminary Examinations. The Appellants after they having found that their names do not appear in the list of successful candidates of Preliminary Examination, could not have questioned the result on the ground that the Respondents had not declared the cut off marks for the Persons with benchmark disabilities. As stated earlier, the Respondents have declared the cut off marks for the persons falling under Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation and not for the Overall Horizontal Reservation under which the Appellants fall. Such action could neither be said to be arbitrary nor violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

14. They further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Ors. Vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors., reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 344 wherein para No.13.1, has held as under:- “13.1. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (40 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In other words, simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process. Therefore, we find that the writ Petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned before a Court of law, the rationale behind recasting the selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been so recast. Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against the same only after they had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process, at which stage, the challenge ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence.”

15. They further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vishal Ashok Thorat and Ors. Vs. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate and Ors., reported in 2020 (18) SCC 673 wherein para Nos.36, 38 & 39, has held as under:-

36. This Court in Uttranchal Public Service Commission, vs. Mamta Bisht and others, laid down that writ petition could not have been entertained against the selected candidate when he has not been a party in the writ petition. In the above case, Public Service Commission invited applications for the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division. The respondent No.1 was not included in the select list. The respondent No.1 filed a writ petition claiming that she ought to have been selected in the reserved category being a woman of Uttaranchal. The claim of respondent No.1 that she was entitled to have been offered the appointment giving her the benefit of horizontal reservation for Uttaranchal women was accepted by the High Court. Challenging the said judgment of the High Court, the appeals were filed by the Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal as well as [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (41 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] State of Uttaranchal. This Court set aside the judgment of the High court on the ground that the selected candidate in reserved category vacancy was a necessary party. In paragraph 9 of the judgment following has been laid down:

38. The judgment of this Court in A. Janardhana relied by Shri Naphade is not applicable in the facts of the present case. In the above case, this Court was considering the challenge to the seniority list. This Court has noticed in paragraph 36 that the appellant had not claimed seniority over any particular individual in the background of any particular fact controverted by that person against whom the claim is made. The contention was that criteria adopted by the Union Government in drawing up the seniority list are invalid and illegal and the relief is claimed against the Union Government restraining it from upsetting or quashing already drawn up valid list. Thus, the relief is claimed against the Union Government and not against any particular individual. This Court by making the above observation has repelled the submission that relief could not have been granted without impleading those who were affected in the seniority list. The claim pertaining to seniority may be laid on different grounds. There may be cases where seniority is claimed against individual person on specific facts, it might be necessary to implead those persons but there may be cases where non- impleadment of person in seniority dispute may not be fatal. The present is a case of recruitment and selection, where after participation in the selection process, 832 candidates were finally selected and were included in the select list. By inclusion in the select list, the selected candidate had acquired right of consideration for appointment, which could not have been taken away in the writ petition filed by respondent No.1, where he could not have challenged the advertisement Nos.2 of 2017 and 48 of 2017. [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (42 of 60) [SAW-119/2025]

39. Shri Naphade further submitted that by mere inclusion of the name in the select list, no right has accrued to the selected candidate for appointment. It may be true that by mere inclusion in the select list, there is no right of appointment but by inclusion in the select list the candidate is entitled for consideration for his appointment, which could not have been denied without there being any valid reason. Thus, we find force in the submission of the appellant that in the present case, the High Court could not have modified the select list without the selected candidates, jeopardized by the High Court being impleaded in the writ petition. Thus, directions issued by the High Court in paragraph 51 are not sustainable also in view of the fact that respondent No.1 had not impleaded the selected candidates in his writ petition. interest

16. They further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 357 in paras No.13 to 18 has held as under:- “13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla (2002), this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar MANU/SC/7926/2007 : (2007) 3 SCC 100, this Court held that: “18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part, in the selection process [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (43 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. (See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil (1991) and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission). 14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borroah where it was held to be well settled that candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful.

15. In Manish Kumar ShahI v. State of Bihar, the same principle was reiterated in the following observations:(SCCp.584, para 16) “16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the Petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The Petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the Petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the Judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J &K, Marripati Nagaraja v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam and K.A. Airlines. Nagamani Indian v.

16.In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, candidates who had participated in the selection process were aware that they were required to possess certain specific qualifications in computer operations. The Appellants had appeared in the selection process and after participating in the interview sought to challenge the selection process as being without jurisdiction. This was held to be impermissible.

17. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (44 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapist in the State of Uttrakhand participated in a written examination held in pursuance of an advertisement. This Court held that if they had cleared the test, the Respondents would not have raised any objection to the selection process or to the methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the Respondents were disentitled to seek relief Under Article 226 and would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection. This Court held that (SCC P.318, para18) “18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome”.

18.In Chandigarh Admn. v. Jasmine Kaur, it was held that a candidate who takes a calculated risk or chance by subjecting himself or herself to the selection process cannot turn around and complain that the process of selection was unfair after knowing of his or her non-selection. In Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, this Court held that:(SCC P. 500, para17) “17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the Appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the Appellants did not challenge it at that time. This, it appears that only when the Appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted.” This principle has been reiterated in a recent judgment in Madras Institute of Development Studies V. S.K. Shiva Subaramanyam.”

17. Mr. Bharat Vyas, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Board, [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (45 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] submitted that the selection process has been conducted in a fair and transparent manner. They further submitted that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) had issued directions about functioning of the Board and from time to time directed for filling up the vacant posts and in compliance of the directions issued by the NGT, the Board initiated and completed the selection process. It was further submitted that the entire selection process was conducted through the IBPS, which is a reputed agency known for conducting the recruitment processes across the country.

18. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents– original petitioners submitted that some of the petitioners have filed writ petitions after issuance of the provisional list. They further submitted that there was no delay on their part in challenging the action taken by the Board. They further submitted that the Board did not conduct the selection process through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) or the State Staff Selection Board, and hence, committed illegality by conducting the selection through the IBPS. They further submitted that the Board has committed serious illegality by not issuing the answer key and also failed to provide opportunity to the candidates to raise objections. They further submitted that the question papers were not supplied to the candidates, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. They further submitted that an illegal or irregular selection process can be challenged at any time. They further argued that the advertisement did not mention that secrecy would be maintained and in any selection process, fairness must be upheld. They further submitted that since the [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (46 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] selection process was conducted and completed in a hurried manner, therefore, direction of the learned Single Judge for revisiting the selection process is just and proper and does not require any interference by this Court. They further submitted that the Board has already initiated steps to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and has not filed any appeal against the said order. They further submitted that upon perusal of the answer sheets, it was found that marks were awarded towards incorrect answers and some candidates were selected based on such evaluation and therefore, serious prejudice has been caused to the respondents–original writ petitioners and therefore the matter needs to be revisited as directed by the learned Single Judge. They further submitted that some of the original petitioners had secured only one mark less than the selected candidates. Lastly, they submitted that there is no need to challenge Clause 11 of the advertisement, as it merely pertains to the provisions under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

19. In support of the contentions counsels relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Harkirat Singh Ghuman Vs. Punjab & Haryana High Court and Ors., reported in 2022 (19) SCC 787 where in para No.26, it has been held as under:- “26. That all the candidates who had appeared in Paper VI (General Knowledge) had a common level playing field and in the absence of any material on record in rebuttal, the submission is not sustainable and deserves rejection. But to keep transparency in the process of holding examination, particularly in such cases where there is a multiple-choice [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (47 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] question paper, it is always advisable that for such question papers, there shall always be an OMR sheet which may be provided to the candidates so that the question paper can be retained by each of the participants and after the examination is held, a provisional answer key is to be uploaded inviting objections from the candidates who had participated in the selection process, to be furnished within a reasonable time and after collating such objections, the same be placed before a subject expert committee to be constituted by the recruiting/competent authority and after the report is submitted by the subject expert committee, the same be examined by the recruiting authority and thereafter the final answer key is to be uploaded. We make it clear that no presumption is to be drawn that the result has to be declared, but at least the candidates may be provided the final answer keys to enable them to make their own assessment. This is one of the mechanisms by which fairness and transparency which is a sine qua non in the public employment can be resorted to.”

20. They further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor and Ors. Vs. Samir Gupta and Ors., reported in 1983 (4) SCC 309, where in para No.15, it has been held as under:- “15. The findings of the High Court raise a question of great importance to the student community. Normally, one would be inclined to the view, especially if one has been a paper setter and an examiner, that the key answer furnished be the paper setter and accepted by the University as correct, should not be allowed to be challenged. One way of achieving it is not to publish the key answer at all. If the University had not published the key answer along with the result of the test, no controversy would have arisen in this case. But that is not a correct way of looking at these matters which involve the future of hundreds of students who are aspirants for admission to professional courses. If the key answer were kept secret in this case, the remedy would [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (48 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] have been worse than the disease because, so many students would have had to suffer the injustice in silence. The publication of the key answer has unravelled an happy state of affairs to which the University and the State Government must find a solution. Their sense of fairness in publishing the key answer has given them an opportunity to have a closer look at the system of examinations which they conduct. What has failed is not the computer but the human system.”

21. They further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramjit Singh Kardam and Ors. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and Ors., reported in 2020 (20) SCC 209, where in para Nos.36, 39 & 59 to 63, it has been held as under:- “36. Learned Counsel for the Appellant at very outset contended that the writ petitions filed by the Respondent challenging the select list dated 10.04.2001 ought not to have been entertained by the High Court since the Respondent having participated in the selection without any demur or protest, they are estopped from challenging the selection. The submission is refuted by the Respondent contending that the above principle of estoppel is not applicable in the facts of the present case. The Petitioner being not even aware of the criteria, which was to be applied for selection, which they came to know only after select list was published, there was no occasion to make any challenge by the Respondents before the above date.

39. The above preposition has been reiterated in other judgments of this Court noted above. In the present case, whether the Respondents- writ Petitioners are estopped from challenging the selection? While noticing the facts of the case, we have noted above that both Appellants and the Respondents had submitted applications in pursuance of advertisement In dated 28.07.2006 No. advertisement, it was provided that the Commission may shortlist the candidates for interview by holding a written examination or on the basis of a rational criteria to be adopted by the Commission. The Commission on 6/2006. [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (49 of 60) [SAW-119/2025]

28.12.2006 published the criteria for calling the candidates for interview. Notice dated 28.12.2006 provided that written examination shall be held for post of PTI on 21.01.2007, on 100 objective type multiple choice questions, each question carrying two marks. The notification also prescribed the minimum qualifying marks- 50% for General category, SC BC and ESM 45% and 25% marks was assigned to the viva voce. The above criteria was implemented and written examination was conducted on 21.01.2007, which examination was cancelled citing complaints regarding malpractices in the written examination. Further notice dated 11.06.2008 was published fixing 20.07.2008 for written examination as per criteria earlier notified. Before the above examination could take place, by public notice dated 30.06.2008, it was cancelled. Another public notice dated 11.07.2008 was published where Commission decided to shortlist eight times the candidates of the advertised post with minimum weightage secured in each category. The said shortlisting was also given up by notice dated 31.07.2009 when it was decided to call all eligible candidates for interview. Commission did not publish any criteria or marks on the basis of which interview was to be held. The criteria, which was published by the Commission on 28.12.2006, 11.06.2008 and 11.07.2008 were given up step by step and no criteria was published for interview, which was scheduled to take place in from 2nd September to 17th October, 2008. When Commission had not published any criteria on the basis of which candidates were going to be subjected for selection process and the candidates participated in the selection without knowing the criteria of selection, they cannot be shut out from challenging the process of selection when ultimately they came to know that Commission step by step has diluted the merit in selection. When candidate is not aware of the criteria of selection under which he was subjected in the process and the said criteria for the first time is published along with final result dated 10.04.2010, he cannot be estopped from challenging the criteria of selection and the entire process of selection. Further when the written examination as notified earlier was scrapped and every eligible candidate was called for interview giving a go [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (50 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] bye to a fair and reasonable process for shortlisting the candidates for interview, that too only by Chairman of the Commission whereas decision regarding criteria of selection has to be taken by Commission, the candidates have every right to challenge the entire selection process so conducted. This Court in Raj Kumar and Ors. v. Shakti Raj and Ors. : (1997) 9 SCC 527 held that when glaring illegalities have been committed in the procedure to get the candidates for examination, the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application. Referring to judgment of this Court's judgment in Madan Lal (supra), this Court laid down following in paragraph 16:

16. ...The entire procedure is also obviously illegal. It is true, as contended by Shri Madhava Reddy, that this Court in Madan Lal v. State of J & K, : (1995) 3 SCC 486 and other decisions referred therein had held that a candidate having taken a chance to appear in an interview and having remained unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge either the constitution of the Selection Board or the method of selection as being illegal; he is estopped to question the correctness of the selection. But in his the Government case, committed glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for examination under the 1955 Rules, so also in the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking out from the purview of the Board and also conduct of the selection in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the facts in this case. Thus, we consider that the procedure offered under the 1955 Rules adopted by the Government or the Committee as well as the action taken by the Government are not correct in law.

59. Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior Counsel has emphatically submitted that in the writ petitions, there are no allegations of mala fide against the Chairman or any member of the [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (51 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] Commission and further neither Chairman nor any members being impleaded as party Respondent by the writ Petitioner, the Petitioners could not have challenged the allocation of marks in viva voce and there was no basis for any claim that marks in the viva voce of candidates having high academic qualification were deliberately reduced and those, who had poor academic records were deliberately given marks between 20 to 27 in the viva voce. Shri Kapil Sibal has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited v. RDS Projects Limited and Ors. : (2013) 1 SCC 524, where this Court has laid down that the law casts a heavy burden on the person alleging mala fides. This Court has further laid down that when the Petitioners alleges malice in fact, it is obligatory for the Petitioner to furnish particulars and implead the persons against whom such malice in fact is alleged. In paragraphs 25, 26.1, 26.2 and 27, following has been laid down:

25....The law casts a heavy burden on the person alleging mala fides to prove the same on the basis of facts that are either admitted or satisfactorily established and/or logical inferences deducible from the same. This is particularly so when the Petitioner alleges malice in fact in which event it is obligatory for the person making any such allegation to furnish particulars that would prove mala fides on the part of the decision- maker. Vague and general allegations unsupported by the requisite particulars do not provide a sound basis for the court to conduct an veracity. inquiry XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

26.1. In State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma,: 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 222, this Court summed up the law on the subject in the following words: (SCC 50-51) p. 260,

50. 'Mala fides' means want of good faith, personal bias, grudge, oblique or improper motive or ulterior purpose. The administrative action [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (52 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] must be said to be done in good faith, if it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not. An act done honestly is deemed to have been done in good faith. An administrative authority must, therefore, act in a bona fide manner and should never act for an improper motive or ulterior purposes or contrary to the requirements of the statute, or the basis of the circumstances contemplated by law, or improperly exercised discretion to achieve some ulterior purpose. The determination of a plea of mala fide involves two questions, namely, (i) whether there is a personal bias or an oblique motive, and (ii) whether the administrative action is contrary to the objects, requirements and conditions of a valid exercise of administrative power.

51. The action taken must, therefore, be proved to have been made mala fide for such considerations. Mere assertion or a vague or bald statement is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated either by admitted or proved facts and circumstances obtainable in a given case. If it is established that the action has been taken mala fide for any such considerations or by fraud on power or colourable exercise of power, it cannot be allowed to stand.

26.2. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,: (2005) 7 SCC 764 where the Court declared that allegations of mala fides need proof of high degree and that an administrative action is presumed to be bona fide unless the contrary is satisfactorily established. The Court observed: (SCC p. 790, para 56)

56. ... It is well settled that the burden of proving mala fide is on the person making the allegations and the burden is 'very heavy'. (Vide E.P. [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (53 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] Royappa v. State of T.N.,: (1974) 4 SCC 3) There is every presumption in favour of the administration that the power has been exercised bona fide and in good faith. It is to be remembered that the allegations of mala fide are often more easily made than made out and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high degree of credibility. As Krishna Iyer, J. stated in Gulam Mustafa v. State of Maharashtra,: (1976) 1 SCC 800 (SCC p. 802, para 2): 'It (mala fide) is the last refuge of a losing litigant.'

27. There is yet another aspect which cannot be ignored. As and when allegations of mala fides are made, the persons against whom the same are levelled need to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings to enable them to answer the charge. In the absence of the person concerned as a party in his/her individual capacity it will neither be fair nor proper to record a finding that malice in fact had vitiated the action taken by the authority concerned. It is important to remember judicial pronouncement declaring an action to be mala fide is a serious indictment of the person concerned that can lead to adverse civil consequences against him.... a

60. There cannot be any dispute to the above preposition of law reiterated by this Court as above. We have noticed from the array of the parties in the writ petition that neither Chairman nor the members of the Commission were personally impleaded nor there are any specific allegations of mala fide against the Chairman or the members of the Commission.

61. The present is not a case of malice in fact. The "malice in fact" and "malice in law" are two well-known concepts in law. In Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited (supra), this Court has dealt with both the concepts, i.e., "malice in fact" and "malice in law". Dealing with the conceptual difference between "malice [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (54 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] in fact" and "malice in law", this Court laid down following in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32: difference conceptual 30....The between the two has been succinctly stated in the following paragraph by Lord Haldane in Shearer v. Shields, 1914 AC 808 (HL) quoted with approval by this Court in ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, : (1976) 2 SCC 521: (SCC p. 641, para 317)

317.... 'Between "malice in fact" and "malice in law" there is a broad distinction which is not peculiar to any system of jurisprudence. The person who inflicts a wrong or an injury upon any person in contravention of the law is not allowed to say that he did so with an innocent mind. He is taken to know the law and can only act within the law. He may, therefore, be guilty of "malice in law", although, so far as the state of his mind was concerned he acted ignorantly, and in that sense innocently. "Malice in fact" is a different thing. It means an actual malicious intention on the part of the person who has done the wrongful act.' (Shearer case, 1914 AC 808 HL, AC pp. 813-14)

31. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in State of A.P. v. Goverdhanlal Pitti, : (2003) 4 SCC 739 where the difference between "malice in fact" and "malice in law" was summed up in the following words: (SCC p. 744, paras 12-13)

12. The legal meaning of 'malice' is 'ill will or spite towards a party and any indirect or improper motive in taking an action'. This is sometimes described as 'malice in fact'. 'Legal malice' or 'malice in law' means 'something done without lawful excuse'. In other words, 'it is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard of the rights of others.' (See Words and Phrases [2025:RJ-JP:31659-DB] (55 of 60) [SAW-119/2025] Legally Defined, 3rd Edn., London, Butterworths, 1989.)

13. Where malice is attributed to the State, it can never be a case of personal ill will or spite on the part of the State. If at all it is malice in legal sense, it can be described as an act which is taken with an oblique or indirect object. 32. To the same effect is the recent decision of this Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. Collector, : (2012) 4 SCC 407 wherein this Court observed: (SCC p. 431, paras 47-48) Malice in law

47. This Court has consistently held that the State is under an obligation to act fairly without ill will or malice in fact or in law. Where malice is attributed to the State, it can never be a case of personal ill will or spite on the part of the State. 'Legal malice' or 'malice in law' means something done without lawful excuse. It is a deliberate act in disregard to the rights of others. It is an act which is taken with an oblique or indirect object. It is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling spite.

48. Mala fide exercise of power does not imply any moral turpitude. It means exercise of statutory power for 'purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended'. It means conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another, a depraved inclination on the part of the authority to disregard the rights of others, where intent is manifested by its injurious acts.

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

Judgment

More cases under Code of Civil Procedure