Shyam Mandir Ki Gali, Mangal Colony, Bhawani Mandi, Jhalawar v. Rajasthan, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur

6. Mohan Sharma S/o Shri Ram Krishan Sharma, aged about 33 years, R/o House No.2708, Forth Crossing, Jat Ke Kuwe Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.)

7. Prabodh Goswami S/o Shri Radha Krishan Goswami, aged about 37 years, R/o 22, C-Block, Gyan Path, Panchsheel Colony, Ajmer.

8. Jagdish S/o Shri Chandaram, aged about 36 years, R/o via post Mandota, Tehsil Thod, District Sikar (Raj.)

9. Murari Lal Sharma S/o Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, aged about 37 years, R/o 91, Ganesh Nagar, 6A, Nadi Ka Phatak, Murlipura, Jaipur (Raj.)

10. Udai Chand Sharma S/o Shri Nand Lal Sharma, aged about 28 years, R/o B-5, Krishna Puri, Bans Badan Pura, Ward No.52, Jaipur (Raj.)

11. Toseef Hussain Hashmi S/o Shri Tofeeque Hussain Hashmi, aged about 34 years, R/o 2/15, Van Vihar Colony, Delhi Byepass Road, Jaipur.

12. Mahesh Kumar Adwani S/o Shri Khushal Das, R/o E-5, Pratap Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

13. Vikas Mathur S/o Shri Gopal Lal Mathur, aged about 34 [2025:RJ-JP:9225] (2 of 6) [CW-12032/2014] years, R/o Near Vikram School, Salasar Road, District Sikar (Raj.)

14. Dharmendra Kumar Kewalramani S/o Shri Kedarnath Kewalramani, aged about 35 years, R/o Quarter No.434, Azad Nagar, Kotra, District Ajmer (Raj.) 15 Suresh Kumar Verma S/o Shri Hari Narayan, R/o Plot No.114- B, Shri Kalyan Nagar, Kartarpura, Jaipur (Raj.)

16. Rajendra Kumar Gangwal S/o Shri Ramji Lal Verma, aged about 37 years, R/o Plot No. C-363, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur.

17. Vijay Kumar Arora S/o Shri Ram Sharan Arora, R/o Radhey Shyam Mandir Ki Gali, Mangal Colony, Bhawani Mandi, Jhalawar (Raj.)

18. Mohit Sharma S/o Shri Raghunandan Sharma, R/o Near Bhatiji Ka Upasara, Gudri Bazar, Ward No.21, Churu (Raj.)

19. Deepak Sharma S/o Shri Ramavtar Sharma, R/o Near Bhtiji Ka Upasara, Gudi Bazar, Ward No.21, Churu (Raj.) …….Petitioners Vs.

1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12032/2014

1. Gopal Krishan Sharma S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma, aged about 40 years, R/o Lambi Gali, Sambharlake, District Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Pradeep Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Virendra Kumar Mudgal, aged about 35 years, R/o 34/150, Gayatri Nagar, Agra Road, Dausa (Raj.)

3. Subhash Singh S/o Shri Laxman Singh, aged about 25 years, R/o Reserve Police Line, Near Jhalana Hospital, Chandpole, Jaipur.

4. Mohd. Shahid S/o Shri Bunde Khan, aged about 30 years, R/o 8A, Opposite Masjid, Road No.5, Behind Geejgarh Vihar, 22 Godown, Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:9225] (3 of 6) [CW-12032/2014]

5. Shri Krishan Jewaliya S/o Shri Baluram, aged about 35 years, R/o 23, Kalyan Colony, Barkat Nagar, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur (Raj.)

6. Raj Kumar Meena S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Meena, aged about 30 years, R/o C-30, Mahesh Nagar, 80 feet Road, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12150/2014

1. Jayendra Mandawaria S/o. Shri Chandan Lal Mandawaria, Plot No. 106, Shri Kalyan Nagar, Kartarpura, Jaipur Raj.

2. Banwari Lal Yadav S/o. Shri Lahari Lal Yadav, Village And Post Jhag, Tehsil Mojiyabad, District Jaipur.

3. Ravi Prakash Sharma S/o. Shri Kailash Chand Sharma, Gram Udawala, Tehsil Dausa, District Dausa Raj. ----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12550/2014 Ravindra Kumar Choudhary S/o Late Shri Shyam Bihari, Behind City Dispensary No. 2, Ward No. 28, Sikar Raj. ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur [2025:RJ-JP:9225] (4 of 6) [CW-12032/2014]

2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vibhor Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 03/03/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the instant matter pertains to the appointment on the post of Stenographer in pursuance of advertisement issued in the Year 2011-2012 by respondent- RPSC.

2. It is further submitted that in the instant matter rules of the game were changed by the respondents qua the marks. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Amarchand Prajapati Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8265/2012, wherein, petitioners therein were given liberty to appear in the second phase of examination.

3. Furthermore, it is submitted that in the instant matter, an interim order was passed on 03.11.2014, whereby, the appointments qua the said posts were made subject to final outcome of the present petition and rights of the petitioners were kept reserved.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents while placing reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in Rohit Kumar Kumawat & Ors. Vs. RPSC & Anr. registered in S.B. Civil Writ [2025:RJ-JP:9225] (5 of 6) [CW-12032/2014] Petition No.5699/2014, and has submitted that a bunch of petitions pursuant to the similar controversy was decided. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reiterated herein below:- “11. Thus, from the perusal of the notice issued by the RPSC, it is apparent that the petitioners with full knowledge proceeded to appear in the examination. After having participated in the examination and having failed on account of the marks being deducted for the mistakes committed by them, they cannot turn around and challenge the said procedure and say that the marking was unjustified. Such procedure of approbate and reprobate cannot be allowed by a candidate who participated with his full eyes open having full knowledge that in the examination marking will be done on the basis of mistakes committed and not for correct answer. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that is in the subsequent selections which were being conducted in 2018, the procedure has been given a go bye, would not create a right in their favour in relation to the examination which was conducted in 2011.

12. In view thereof, the submission of the counsel for the petitioners fails. No relief can be granted to the petitioners. Even though, interim order may have been passed in their favour for participating in the English Stenography Examination although they failed in the Hindi Stenography Examination. Since it was a pre-condition which was not challenged at the relevant time, now the same cannot be challenged after having failed in the Hindi Stenography Examination."

5. It is further submitted that petitions filed in the akin recruitment process were dismissed qua the similarly situated persons as that of petitioner.

7. Heard and considered. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the records, this Court deems it apposite to dismiss the present petition due to the following observations:

7.1 That the impugned advertisement was issued in the year 2011, wherein the petitioners have duly participated, however, on [2025:RJ-JP:9225] (6 of 6) [CW-12032/2014] account of non-selection in the said recruitment process, due to change in the rules of the game, the present petition is filed.

7.2 That the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are on distinguishable facts.

7.3 That under akin factual narrative and legal issue, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, whilst placing reliance upon judgment(s) passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated

18.01.2021 passed in Rohit Kumar (supra), had dismissed the said bunch of petitions.

7.4 That while making parity with the judgment encapsulated in Rohit Kumar (supra), and taking note of the fact that the present petitions and those qua which the aforementioned judgment is passed are/were filed assailing the same recruitment process; this Court is of the view that the present petitions are bereft of any merit.

8. Accordingly, the present petitions are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. JKP/92-95 (SAMEER JAIN),J