Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jaswant Singh Jhala vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:44411) on 8 October, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:44411]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12146/2025
Jaswant Singh Jhala S/o Shri Vijay Singh Jhala, Aged About 23
Years, Resident Of Village Badundiya, Post Mada, Tehsil
Gogunda, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Education Officer, (Head Quarters), Udaipur.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Mathur
Mr. Hemant Singh Solanki
Mr. Prakash Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak, AAAG
Mr. Lavish Bhati for
Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG
Ms. Nandipna Gehlot for
Mr. Manish Patel
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order 08/10/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the respondents be directed to provide appointment to the petitioner on the post of 'Upper Primary School Teacher (General Education) (Level-2) in subject English.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he filled up his form qua both the TSP and the non TSP area in EWS category. The petitioner found place in the select list (qua TSP area) but was not afforded appointment on the premise that he had already availed (Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:22:20 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:55:04 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:44411] (2 of 6) [CW-12146/2025] relaxation in the REET Examination and hence, once having availed the relaxation, he would now not be entitled to be migrated from the category of EWS to General although he had secured more marks than the last selected general category candidate.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Division Bench of this Court in Deepika Kunwar Chundawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.31/2024 and other connected matters (decided on 26.05.2025) has, in identical facts and qua the same recruitment process in question, already held that the rule of migration will be applicable even if a candidate has passed TET/eligibility qualification by relaxed criteria. Therein, the Court specifically held that such candidates shall be entitled to the benefit of rule of migration.
4. Counsel submits that in view of the ratio laid down in Deepika Kunwar Chundawat (supra), the present petitioner too deserves to be considered qua the unreserved/general category.
5. In addition, Counsel submits that there being no seats reserved for EWS category qua a TSP area, the petitioner was even otherwise entitled to be considered qua the General category, he having secured more marks than the last selected general category candidate.
6. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents while relying upon the recent Apex Court judgment in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sajib Roy; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1943 tried to distinguish the ratio laid down in Deepika Kunwar Chundawat (supra).
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:22:20 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:55:04 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:44411] (3 of 6) [CW-12146/2025]
7. Counsel further raised the ground of delay and latches. He submits that the petitioner chose to prefer the petition in the year 2025 only after the judgment in Deepika Kunwar Chundawat (supra) having been pronounced. He submits that a fence-sitter cannot be held entitled for any relief at a belated stage.
In support of his argument, counsel relied upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jaishree Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10059/2021 (decided on 26.08.2021).
8. Counsel further submits that if at this stage, the petitioner is granted appointment, definitely, some other person from General category who has already been afforded appointment shall be ousted and without impleading such party who is likely to be affected, the present petition cannot be maintained.
9. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record.
10. So far the judgment in Sajib Roy (supra) is concerned, evidently, that is a judgment subsequent to the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Deepika Kunwar Chundawat (supra). Further, if the counsel wishes to distinguish the ratio of Deepika Kunwar Chundawat (supra) in light of Sajib Roy (supra), his remedy definitely would be before the learned Division Bench.
11. So far as the ratio laid down in Deepika Kunwar Chundawat (supra) is concerned, counsel for the respondents is (Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:22:20 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:55:04 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:44411] (4 of 6) [CW-12146/2025] not in a position to refute the fact that the issue in question would definitely be covered by the said ratio.
12. In Deepika Kunwar Chundawat (supra), the Court directed as under:
"46. As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the batch of writ petitions assailed in these appeals cannot be sustained and is set aside. The writ petitions are consequently allowed and all the writ petitioners are held entitled to benefit of rule of migration. That means, if they have obtained marks more than the general category candidates, in the recruitment process, they are entitled to be considered against general category posts. Accordingly, State would be obliged to revise the select list of general category candidates and the petitioners would be entitled to appointment as teachers against the existing vacancies from the date other general category candidates were appointed, with all consequential benefits of seniority, pay fixation and notional benefits but not the actual salary to which they would be entitled only from the date of this order.
47. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed.
48. A copy of this judgment be placed on record of each connected appeal."
13. A bare perusal of the above direction reflects that the State Authorities were directed by the Hon'ble Division Bench to revise the select list of general category candidates. In the opinion of this Court, that was a direction in rem and the state authorities were under an obligation to comply with the same. Had the list of general category candidates been revised in pursuance to the above direction, definitely, the present petitioner who scored higher marks than the last selected general category candidate, (Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:22:20 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:55:04 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:44411] (5 of 6) [CW-12146/2025] would ipso facto have found place in the final select list so as to be held entitled to be afforded appointment.
14. Further, it is an admitted position that the recruitment process in question has not yet been completed and seats qua the said recruitment still remain vacant.
15. In view of the above admitted position, this Court is of the clear opinion that even if the petitioner has approached this Court with a delay, he can still be considered as the seats still remain vacant. But then, definitely, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be affected upon to the detriment of any other candidate who might be ousted because of the appointment of the petitioner.
16. In view of the above, keeping into consideration the overall facts, the present petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The respondents shall consider the petitioner as per his secured marks qua the 'General category' and if the petitioner is found to have secured more marks than the last selected General category candidate, he shall be afforded appointment as per his merit qua the TSP area.
(ii) However, the above appointment shall be offered only if the seats remain vacant as of date.
(iii.) Further, no person already afforded appointment shall be ousted because of the appointment to be afforded to the petitioner now.
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:22:20 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:55:04 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:44411] (6 of 6) [CW-12146/2025]
(iv) If the petitioner is granted appointment, he shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits of seniority, pay fixation and notional benefits but not the actual salary to which he would be entitled only from the date of the present order.
17. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J 158-Manila/-
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:22:20 PM) (Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:55:04 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)