Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satyendra Kumar Gaur vs Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur on 4 March, 2024
Author: Rajendra Prakash Soni
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Rajendra Prakash Soni
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15630/2021
1. Kamal Kumar S/o Sh. Atma Ram, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Village 1617H Ghanjatiyan, Tehsil Sri Karanpur,
District - Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 15084)
2. Shashikant Sharma S/o Sh. Khemchand Sharma, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o House No. R-425, In Front Of Circuit
House, U.i.t. Colony, District - Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Roll
No. 15320)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar
General.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
3. Arya Institute Of Engineering And Research Centre,
Through The Examiner, S.p. 40 Riico Industrial Area,
Delhi Road, Kukas, Jaipur.
4. Rahul Kumar Khandelwal S/o Sh. Sunil Kumar
Khandelwal, R/o V.p.o. Nangal Rajawatan, 182 Adarsh
Colony, Ward No. 2, District - Dausa, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15637/2021
1. Gagandeep S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Ward No. 04, Gali No. 01, Purani Abadi, District - Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan (Roll No. 28862).
2. Vikram Singh Gurjar S/o Sh. Jagdish Kr Gurjar, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o 4290 Narsingh Colony, Nahargarh
Kile Ke Niche, Purani Basti, Jaipur District - Jaipur,
Rajasthan (Roll No. 33293).
3. Ravi Gurjar S/o Sh. Durgalal Gurjar, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o 4290 Nahargarh Kill Ki Nicha, Meena Para, Purani
Basti, Jaipur District - Jaipur, Rajasthan (Roll No. 30980).
4. Pankaj Shakya S/o Sh. Rajender Kumar, Aged About 25
Years, R/o House No. D-119, Kedar Chowk Purani Abadi
Ward No. 4, Sri Ganganagar, District - Sri Ganganagar,
Rajasthan (Roll No. 37111).
5. Ajay Meena S/o Sh. Ramdhan Meena, Aged About 22
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (2 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
Years, R/o 4203, Neemri Police Station Ke Pass, Chhipo Ki
Bagichi, Nahargarh Road, Jaipur District - Jaipur,
Rajasthan (Roll No. 17603).
6. Devendra Kumar Meena S/o Sh. Harphool Meena, Aged
About 21 Years, R/o Vill- Chainpura Post- Doroli, Tehsil-
Kathumar, Kherli, Alwar, District- Alwar, Rajasthan (Roll
No. 40446)
7. Mamta Bairwa D/o Sh. Babulal Bairwa, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 2/287, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, District - Jaipur,
Rajasthan (Roll No. 17126).
8. Tarun Madaan S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o 89 B, Harmilapi Colony, Sri Ganganagar, District - Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan (Roll No. 23806).
9. Alok Kumar Swami S/o Sh. Vinod Kumar Swami, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Near Aamli Wale Balaji, Ward No. 21,
Reengus, Sikar, District - Sikar, Rajasthan (Roll No.
24970).
10. Rahul Sharma S/o Sh. Shravan Lal Sharma, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Plot No. 15, Kalyanpuri-A, Kalyanpura,
Mansarover, District - Jaipur, Rajasthan (Roll No. 30538).
11. Satish Sharma S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Vpo Baldevgarh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District -
Alwar, Rajasthan (Roll No. 24393).
12. Naveen Kumar Meena S/o Sh. Gopal Lal Meena, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o P. No. 184, Gaitor Road, Brahmpuri,
District - Jaipur, Rajasthan (Roll No. 26559).
13. Surendra Singh S/o Sh. Hakim Singh, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Vpo- Khan Penghore, District - Bharatpur,
Rajasthan (Roll No. 26971).
14. Kamesh Garg S/o Sh. Ishwari Prasad Garg, Aged About
25 Years, R/o 63, Rajendra Neagr, District - Bharatpur,
Rajasthan (Roll No. 27031).
15. Somendra Sharma S/o Sh. Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o R-51/180 Govind Nagar, West Amer
Road, Jaipur, District - Jaipur, Rajasthan (Roll No. 23982).
16. Mahesh Chand Sharma S/o Sh. Chiranji Lal Sharma, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Village - Jagmalpura, Jagmalpura,
District - Jaipur, Rajasthan (Roll No. 33721).
17. Amit Kumar S/o Sh. Hanuman Sahai, Aged About 28
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (3 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
Years, R/o 59, Ram Dev Mandir Balai Basti Shastri Nagar,
Jaipur, District - Jaipur, Rajasthan (Roll No. 25797)
18. Hitesh Parmar S/o Sh. Narendra Kumar Parmar, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Darjiyo Ka Chowk, Khanda Falsa,
Jodhpur, District - Jodhpur, Rajasthan (Roll No. 17482).
19. Divya Goyal D/o Sh. Prakash Goyal, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o House No. 397, Subhash Nagar, Pani Ki Tanki Ke Pass,
Pal Road, Jodhpur, District - Jodhpur, Rajasthan (Roll No.
24321).
20. Renu Bala D/o Sh. Brijlal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ward
No. 19, Udaram Chowk, Near Khetarpal Mandir, Purani
Abadi, Sri Ganganagar, District - Sri Ganganagar,
Rajasthan (Roll No. 22958).
21. Mohammed Niem Qureshi S/o Sh. Abdul Latif Qureshi,
Aged About 45 Years, R/o 27/143, Near Mehtab Ki Tal,
Junawas, Bhilwara, District - Bhilwara, Rajasthan (Roll No.
15008).
22. Harshit Sharma S/o Sh. Surendra Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o C-33 Jda Colony Siris Road,
Bhankrota, District - Jaipur, Rajasthan (Roll No. 25853).
23. Krishan Singh S/o Sh. Roop Singh Chouhan, Aged About
24 Years, R/o Ward No. 32, New Near Baba Ramdev
Mandir, Suratgarh, District - Sriganganagar, Rajasthan
(Roll No. 37246).
24. Dushyant S/o Sh. Kartar Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
B-142, Jawahar Nagar, District - Bharatpur, Rajasthan
(Roll No. 30736).
25. Himanshu Sharma S/o Sh. Gireesh Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Adarash Nagar Sec.-1, Bayana,
District - Bharatpur, Rajasthan (Roll No. 15512).
26. Sahil Kumar Yadav S/o Sh. Banwari Lal, Aged About 23
Years, R/o 32/256, Roshan Cycle Store Ke Samne,
Kumher Gate, Main Market, District - Bharatpur,
Rajasthan (Roll No. 15160).
27. Ravikant Katara S/o Sh. Laxmi Kant, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Mohalla Rupia Paysa Old Bayana Bus Stand,
Bharatpur District Bharatpur, Rajasthan (Roll No. 32592).
28. Pawan Kumar Singhal S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Singhal,
Aged About 36 Years, R/o Out Side Mathura Gate, Infront
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (4 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
Of Bharat Studio, Bharatpur, District - Bharatpur,
Rajasthan (Roll No. 21246).
29. Poonam D/o Sh. Govind Singh Saini, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Bamda Colony, Subhash Chowk, Bayana,
District - Bharatpur, Rajasthan (Roll No. 26355).
30. Khushboo Gautam S/o Sh. Surendra Babu, Aged About 27
Years, R/o 591Iyan/809, Baldev Bihar Kharika Telibagh,
Lucknow, District - Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (Roll No.
40429).
31. Yogendra Saini S/o Sh. Trilok Chand Saini, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Namak Katra Chandpole Gate, District -
Bharatpur, Rajasthan (Roll No. 17260).
32. Nitin Mittal S/o Sh. Ramavatar Mittal, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Mittal Machinery Store Infront Of Panchayat
Samiti Alwar Road Nagar Bharatpur, District - Bharatpur,
Rajasthan (Roll No. 27325).
33. Adesh S/o Sh. Mahesh Chand, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Shyam Nagar Colony, Near Central School, Bharatpur,
District - Bharatpur, Rajasthan (Roll No. 37681).
34. Umesh Kumar Verma S/o Sh. Beerendra Kumar Varma,
Aged About 25 Years, R/o Shiv Nagar Infront Of Arya
Agency Circular Road, District - Bharatpur, Rajasthan (Roll
No. 15156).
35. Ansul Gupta S/o Sh. Om Prakash Gupta, Aged About 32
Years, R/o House No. 3/17, Housing Board Jawahar
Nagar, District - Bharatpur, Rajasthan (Roll No. 29353).
36. Rahul Kumar S/o Sh. Atar Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/
o Vpo Peeli, The. Nadabai, District - Bharatpur, Rajasthan
(Roll No. 15418).
37. Harendra Kumar S/o Sh. Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Gopal Garh Jaghina Gate, Bharatpur,
District - Bharatpur, Rajasthan (Roll No. 41016).
38. Ankit Kumar S/o Sh. Rajvir Singh, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Vpo Mai, Mai, District - Bharatpur, Rajasthan (Rol No.
28526).
39. Pallav Sharma S/o Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Gayatri Public School, Gour Mohalla, Arain,
Ajmer, District - Ajmer, Rajasthan (Roll No. 41945).
40. Ekta Chejara D/o Ram Lal Chejara, Aged About 34 Years,
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (5 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
R/o Maya Vihar, Colony Ward 22, Near Court, District - Sri
Madhopur, Rajasthan (Roll No. 35571).
41. Shobhit Khanna S/o Sh. Anand Khanna, Aged About 30
Years, R/o 2128 Nagarpara Gangori Bazar, Infront Of
Watar Works Department, District - Jaipur, Rajasthan
(Roll No. 57554).
42. Hem Raj Gurjar S/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Gurjar, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Village Jodhula Via Maid, Tehsil - Virat
Nagar, District - Jaipur, Rajasthan (Roll No. 27096).
43. Anil Sharma S/o Sh. Makhan Lal Sharma, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Sadulsahar, Sri Ganganagar
District - Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan (Roll No. 33875).
44. Mayank Bhardwaj S/o Sh. Deepak Kumar Bhardwaj, Aged
About 20 Years, R/o Chitavan Ki Gali, Near Police Line,
Outside Malakhera Gate, Alwar District - Alwar, Rajasthan
(Roll No. 25693).
45. Piyush Sharma S/o Sh Sajjan Lal Sharma, Aged About 24
Years, R/o 5/4, New Civil Line, Housing Board, District -
Banswara, Rajasthan (Roll No. 29265).
46. Shilpa Choudhary D/o Shri Mahendra Singh Moond, Aged
About 21 Years, R/o Village Bhairupura, Post Kaswali
Tehsil Laxmangarh, Sikar, Rajasthan (Roll No. 24813).
47. Sachin Kumar S/o Shri Subhakaran, Aged About 20 Years,
R/o Village Jhatawa Khurd, Post Niradhanu, Malsisar,
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan (Roll No. 25935).
48. Bhuwan Singh S/o Shri Dinesh Singh, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Ward No. 43, Behind Bsnl Office, Sureshiya,
Hanumangarh Junction, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan (Roll
No. 19999).
49. Bhagat Singh S/o Shri Harphool Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Vpo Hetamsar, Via Nua, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan
(Roll No. 29214).
50. Umang Gadhwal S/o Shri Jai Karan Singh, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village Isharpura, Post Hamiri Kalan, Malsisar,
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan (Roll No. 22973).
51. Vikash Kumar Gurawa S/o Shri Guljhari Lal, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Ward No. 5, Meghawal Mohala, Village
Brijlalpura, Tehsil Chirawa, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan (Roll No.
24078).
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (6 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
52. Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Ramniwas, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Bhurasar Ka Bass, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan (Roll No.
26474).
53. Ashutosh Saini S/o Shri Gopal Saini, Aged About 19
Years, R/o Tilak Nagar, Devipura Road, Near Pratap
Nursery, District - Sikar, Rajasthan (Roll No. 18066).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar
General.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15638/2021
1. Himanshu Sharma S/o Sh. Tulsi Ram Sharma, Aged About
23 Years, Resident Of Near C.h.b. Jodhpur.
2. Kuldeep Chouhan S/o Sh. Nathunath, Aged About 24
Years, Resident Of Near Kisan Hostel, Merta City, District
Nagaur (Raj.).
3. Govind Arora S/o Sh. Kailash Arora, Aged About 20 Years,
Resident Of Near C.h.b, Jodhpur.
4. Amit Borawar S/o Sh. Mahesh Borawar, Aged About 26
Years, Resident Of Near Uco Bank First C Road,
Sardarpura, Jodhpur.
5. Dileep Prajapat S/o Sh. Ramdev Prajapat, Aged About 27
Years, Resident Of Near Uco Bank First C Road,
Sardarpura, Jodhpur.
6. Mohammed Adnan S/o Mohammed Shadique, Aged About
29 Years, Resident Of Nagorigate, Jodhpur.
7. Satish Bishnoi S/o Sh. Birma Ram, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident Of Bishnoi Mohalla, Ramdev Colony, Chandpole,
Jodhpur (Raj.).
8. Rekha Rajpurohit D/o Sh. Ganpat Singh, Aged About 25
Years, Resident Of 27, Rajpurohito Ka Bas, Sukarlai,
Roopawas, District Pali (Raj.).
9. Shubham Vyas S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Vyas, Aged About
25 Years, Resident Of Lalani Vyason Ka Chauk, District
Bikaner.
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (7 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
10. Mukul Acharya S/o Sh. Ashok Acharya, Aged About 21
Years, Resident Of Outside Usta Bari, Harolai Hanuman
Mandir Road, Near Moongiri Gufa, Bikaner (Raj.).
11. Kalicharan Pareek S/o Devidutt Pareek, Aged About 24
Years, Resident Of Near Pandey Ji Ki Taal, Indira Colony,
District Bikaner (Raj.).
12. Sourabh Vyas S/o Sh. Jay Kumar Vyas, Aged About 23
Years, Resident Of Mundron Ka Chauk, District Bikaner
(Raj.).
13. Dishant Solanki S/o Sh. Rajesh Solanki, Aged About 21
Years, Resident Of Inside Sheetlagate, Near Mahadev
Temple, District Bikaner (Raj.).
14. Shivam Vyas S/o Sh. Shyam Sunder Vyas, Aged About 21
Years, Resident Of Nathaniyo Ki Saray, Ranga Ki Gali
Barah Guwad Chowk, Bikaner (Raj.).
15. Ramjan Bhutta S/o Abdul Bhutta, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident Of Mahboob Tailor Ki Gali, Te3Liwada Road,
District Bikaner (Raj.).
16. Lekha Modi D/o Sh. Ishwar Dayal Modi, Aged About 23
Years, Resident Of House No. 1, Vakilo Ki Gali, Chootina
Well, District Bikaner (Raj.).
17. Sakshi Modi D/o Sh. Sushil Kumar Modi, Aged About 26
Years, Resident Of 1/97 Mukta Prasad Nagar, District
Bikaner (Raj.).
18. Ananya Mishra D/o Brijesh Mishra, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident Of Patel Nagar, District Bikaner (Raj.).
19. Navratan Vyas S/o Sh. Vishnu Dutt Vyas, Aged About 27
Years, Resident Of Mohta Chowk, Udhodas Ki Perol,
District Bikaner (Raj.).
20. Vijay Laxmi Modi D/o Sh Gauri Shankar Modi, Aged About
29 Years, Resident Of 4 - E- 274 J.n.v. Colony, Bikaner
(Raj.).
21. Komal Modi D/o Girdhari Lal Modi, Aged About 21 Years,
Resident Of B- 1 - 44 Sudarshan Nagar, Pawan Puri,
Bikaner (Raj.).
22. Rizwana Parihar D/o Abdul Hameed Parihar, Aged About
26 Years, Resident Of Sonaro Ki Bagechi Ke Pichhe,
Bharat Gas Agency Ke Samne, District Bikaner (Raj.).
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (8 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
23. Asraf S/o Anwar Ali, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of
Behind Rajasthan Patrika Mohalla, Purani Masjid Gali,
District Bikaner (Raj.).
24. Subham Gehlot S/o Anil Kumar Gehlot, Aged About 24
Years, Resident Of Sati Dadi Mandir, Bpo Palana, Bikaner
(Raj.).
25. Mahesh Suthar S/o Sh. Shyamlal Suthar, Aged About 25
Years, Resident Of Udairamsar, Bikaner (Raj.).
26. Krishan Chandra Chura S/o Purushotam Das Chura, Aged
About 19 Years, Resident Of Jassusar Gate Bikaner (Raj.).
27. Vijendra Singh Bhati S/o Bharu Singh Bhati, Aged About
30 Years, Resident A - 28 Vallabh Garden, Near Shiv
Shakti Marble, Bikaner (Raj.).
28. Aditya Tiwari S/o Sh. Satya Narayan Tiwari, Aged About
28 Years, Resident Of 13/125 Mukta Prasad Nagar,
Bikaner (Raj.).
29. Manish Kumar Sharma S/o Ramakant Sharma, Aged
About 24 Years, Resident Of Mukund Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).
30. Abhishek Swami S/o Ramkishan Swami, Aged About 24
Years, Resident Of Nathusar Bas, Bikaner (Raj.).
31. Sahil Chouhan S/o Mohd. Hussain, Aged About 22 Years,
Resident Of Pabubari, Bikaner (Raj.).
32. Mritunjaya Sain S/o Rajesh Kumar Sain, Aged About 23
Years, Resident Of Qi. 120, 121, Ott. Mukta Prasad Nagar,
Bikaner (Raj.).
33. Brijmohan Rajpurohit S/o Sh. Goverdhan Lal Rajpurohit,
Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Sadafateh, Jhanwron
Ka Chowk, Bikaner (Raj.).
34. Ravina Shrimali D/o Sh. Giriraj Shrimali, Aged About 23
Years, Resident Of Mohalla Chungiran Brahmpuri Chowk,
Bikaner (Raj.).
35. Sachin Soni S/o Sh. Shrawan Soni, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of B - 4 - 259, Sudarrshan Nagar, Bikaner
(Raj.).
36. Azaz Ahamad S/o Liaquat Ali, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident Of Mohalla Chungarar, Bikaner (Raj.).
37. Vinod Sain S/o Chandan Ram Sain, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident Of C- 411G Rajendra Prasad Colony, Jaisalmer,
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (9 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
(Raj.).
38. Seema Jangir D/o Tarachand Jangir, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident Of Private Bus Stand, Tehsil Deedwana District
Nagaur (Raj.).
39. Amit Garuwa S/o Sh. Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 25
Years, Resident Of Vill. Rajeru Tehsil Sridungargarh,
Rajeru, Bikaner (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur, Through The Registrar
General.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15640/2021
1. Satyendra Kumar Gaur S/o Late Sh. Ganga Lahri Gaur,
Aged About 36 Years, P.no. 13-A, Kishan Vihar, Goner
Road, Jaipur 302031 (Rajasthan). Roll No. 29787
2. Manuraj Singh S/o Shivraj Singh, Aged About 27 Years,
P.no. 151-A, Shriram Nagar-A, Khirni Phatak Road,
Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.). Roll No. 22302
3. Tarun Kumar Sharma S/o Badri Prasad Sharma, Aged
About 25 Years, Behind Of Panchayat Samiti, Shiv Colony,
Bandikui-303313 (Dausa) Roll No. 22811
4. Kiran Rajput S/o Ramesh Singh Rajput, Aged About 34
Years, 11, Shrimal Colony, Lal Halway Ke Pass, Hida Ki
Mori, Jaipur, Tripoliya Bazar Roll No. 38364
5. Priyanka Meena D/o Suresh Meena, Aged About 24 Years,
Banzaro Ka Mohalla, Vpo Kachroda Puhulera, Jaipur,
Rajasthan Roll N. 15046
6. Megha Singhal D/o Hari Mohan Singhal, Aged About 26
Years, Behind New Mandi, Agarwal Colony, Hindaun City,
Karauli, Rajasthan, Roll No. 36218
7. Harish Sahu S/o Banwari Lal Sahu, Aged About 21 Years,
Annpurna Dungri Bamor Road, Tonk, Rajasthan Roll No.
18767
8. Ramjas Gurjar S/o Prahlad Gurjar, Aged About 19 Years,
Vill Post Soran, Teh. Dist. Tonk, Rajasthan Roll No. 35660
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (10 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
9. Divya Sain D/o Bhgwan Sahay Sain, Aged About 27
Years, Near Jain Mandir, Aadarsh Nagar Depot Tonk,
Rajasthan Roll No. 22336
10. Upasana Sharma D/o Surgyani Sharma C/o Surgyani
Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, Tiba Toll Tax, Behind Hotel
Raj Fort, Tonk Road 16 Km, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan
Roll No. 27999
11. Santosh Meena D/o Banwari Lal Meena, Aged About 26
Years, 4 C 19, Rajkiy Malti Stori, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur,
Rajasthan Roll No. 25362
12. Rajat Singh S/o Indra Bhushan Gupta, Aged About 25
Years, Rajeev Colony, Near T V Tower, Deeg, Bharatpur,
Rajasthan Roll No. 22213
13. Shiv Kumar Meena S/o Shankar Lal Meena, Aged About
19 Years, Vpo Mathasula, Teh. Jamwaramgarh, Dist.
Jaipur, Rajasthan Roll No. 18226
14. Ajay Kumar Beniwal S/o Chiranji Lal Bairwa, Aged About
24 Years, Near Community Centre, Vpo Watika, Jaipur,
Rajasthan Roll No. 20502
15. Dinesh Kumar Verma S/o Mahesh Kumar, Aged About 22
Years, Vill Dhadha, Post Sudarpura, Teh. Kotputli, Jaipur,
Rajasthan Roll No. 34534
16. Praveen Sharma S/o Suresh Sharma, Aged About 23
Years, Tehsil Parbatsar, Kinsariya, Nagaur, Rajasthan Roll
No. 15294
17. Neha Gaur D/o Ghanshyam Gaur, Aged About 23 Years,
814-A, Banshi Bhawan, Tikki Walon Ka Rasta, Kishanpole
Bazar, Jaipur, Rajasthan Roll N. 29619
18. Juhi D/o Rajbeer Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Ward No.
11, Street No. 2, Near Sukhwant Palace, Purani Abadi, Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan Roll N. 27065
19. Rahul Badoliya S/o Chhoga Lal Badoliya, Aged About 19
Years, 6, Maa Tripura Nagar, Tejajai Ka Bada, Sanganer,
Jaipur, Rajasthan Roll No. 27945
20. Nisha Agarwal D/o Satish Chand Agarwal, Aged About 25
Years, 14C, Shrimal Colony, Hida Ki Mori, Surajpole Bazar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan Roll No. 31478
21. Dev Karan Sahu S/o Dalip Chand Sahu, Aged About 31
Years, Village Raipura, Post Ratusar, Tehsil Sardarshahar,
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (11 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
District Churu, Rajasthan Roll No. 27501
22. Sumitra Devi D/o Bhaira Ram, Aged About 27 Years, 23,
Dablibas Molavi 1 Dbi 1, Pilibangan, Dabli Rathan,
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan Roll No. 30494
23. Savita Rajbhar D/o Nandji Prasad, Aged About 32 Years,
P. No. 106, Royal Tatvam, Iskcon Road, Dholai,
Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan Roll N. 19658
24. Kashish Kharra D/o Hari Narayan Kharra, Aged About 23
Years, C-17, Shriji Nagar, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan
Roll No. 31412
25. Purushottam Thathera S/o Roop Narayan Thathera, Aged
About 21 Years, Parmanand Colony, Ladnu Road,
Didwana, Nagaur, Rajasthan Roll No. 24348
26. Khushee Ram Meena S/o Deep Ram Meena, Aged About
21 Years, Vill Dovnagar, Post Sukar, The Bamanwas, Sawi
Madhopur, Rajasthan Roll No. 26742
27. Ramanand Sharma S/o Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged
About 34 Years, 180, Hariyana Mohalla, Vpo Natoj,
Kathumar, Alwar, Rajasthan Roll No. 15191
28. Ashishi Kumar Bansal S/o Omprakash Bansal, Aged About
31 Years, 101, Bhola Patti, Mahu Khas, The Hindaun City,
Dist Karauli, Rajasthan 322254 Roll No. 15170
29. Deepak Sharma S/o Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged About
21 Years, Vpo Natoj, Tehsil Kathumar, Natoj, Dist-Alwar,
321606, Rajasthan Roll No. 25404
30. Akash Khandelwal S/o Damodar Prasad Khandelwal, Aged
About 25 Years, 3700, Babu Katiba, Surajpole Bazar,
Jaipur Rajasthan, Jaipur, Jatpur - 302003, Rajasthan Roll
No. 22346
31. Ashok Pathak S/o Sushil Kumar Pathak, Aged About 29
Years, D/668, Rpa, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur 302016,
Rajasthan Roll No. 15271
32. Pranay Sharma S/o Umesh Sharma, Aged About 26
Years, 60-A, Jai Bhawani Colony, Khatipura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan Roll No. 24940
33. Mahesh Sharma S/o Ishwar Lal Sharma, Aged About 29
Years, 24, Jaitpuri Colony, 80 Feet Road, Mahesh Nagar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan Roll No. 31928
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (12 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
34. Ajay Khurana S/o Ashok Kumar Khurana, Aged About 29
Years, House No. 1, Street No. 7, Setia Colony, Near
Gururam Dass Gurudwara, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan Roll
N. 29790
35. Laxmi Lawa D/o Ghetan Lawa, Aged About 22 Years,
Beside H - 307, H-Block, Siddharth Nagar, Getor
Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan Roll No. 18253
36. Khushi Bansal D/o Santosh Kumar Bansal, Aged About 21
Years, 13/423, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan Roll No.
32620
37. Mangal Prajapati S/o Rajendra Prajapati, Aged About 24
Years, Ward No. 30, Subhash Nagar Bhind, Bhind -
477001 (Mp) Roll No. 15372
38. Shashi Kant Meena S/o Kehari Mal Meena, Aged About 28
Years, P.no. 56, Shyam Nagar, Roopbass, Alwar 301001
Rajasthan Roll No. 17923
39. Devesh Kumar S/o Jagmohan Sain, Aged About 25 Years,
Behind Ashok Takies, Khatik Padi Mohalla, Alwar 301001
Rajasthan Roll No. 25262
40. Rajaram Meena S/o Mukesh Kumar Meena, Aged About
23 Years, Outside Delhi Gate, Dusar Wala Kaun, Meena
Padi, Alwar 301001 Rajasthan Rall No. 31050
41. Nitish S/o Rajendra Singh, Aged About 26 Years, H.no.
635, Ward 18, Gali No. 1, Near Kisan Bhawan, Shiv
Colony, Jind, Haryana Roll No. 17218
42. Ravindra Kumar Swami S/o Kanha Ram Swami, Aged
About 23 Years, House No. 11-C-2, Shakti Nagar,
Suratgarh, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan Roll No. 42451
43. Abhishek Sharma S/o Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About
27 Years, A-4, Balaji Nagar, Goverdhan Vilas, Sector-14,
R.h.b., Udaipur, Rajasthan Roll No. 16953
44. Lalit Kumar Verma S/o Malchand Verma, Aged About 27
Years, Power House Ke Samne, Kishangarh, Renwal,
Jaipur 303603 Roll No. 32163
45. Anil Kumar S/o Anand Prakash, Aged About 32 Years, H-
109, Indira Nagar, Jhalana Dungari Phase -2 302004 Roll
No. 15110
46. Israr Khan S/o Mohammed Ushman Khan, Aged About 27
Years, 49 Madina Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur 302012 Roll No.
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (13 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
32292
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar
General, Principal Seat At Jodhpur.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15641/2021
1. Hemant Parihar S/o Sh. Chanda Ram, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Tapariya Bera, Opp. Chand Poll, District-
Jodhpur (Raj.). (Roll No. 15348).
2. Paras Rakhecha S/o Sh. Vijay Raj, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o 48-C, Shri Ram Marg, Near Ayushi Tower, Pal Road
Masuriya, District- Jodhpur (Raj.). (Roll No. 25595).
3. Hemant Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Kamal Kishore, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Ward No.21, Near Idea Tower,
Taranagar, District- Churu (Raj.). (Roll No. 15467).
4. Ashish Kumawat S/o Sh. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat, Aged
About 20 Years, R/o Ward No. 03, Vpo- Pachar, The
Dantaramgarh, Pachar, District- Sikar (Raj.). (Roll No.
35470).
5. Rahul Sankhla S/o Sh. Rakesh Sankhla, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Sharda Colony, Balad Road, Beawar, District-
Ajmer (Raj.). (Roll No. 15270).
6. Ashok Kumar Choudhary S/o Sh. Babu Lal Choudhary,
Aged About 23 Years, R/o A-43, Patel Nagar, Sinwar
Mode, Post- Sinwar, Jhotwara, District- Jaipur (Raj.). (Roll
No. 26955).
7. Gaurav Chaturvedi S/o Sh. Omprakash Sharma, Aged
About 21 Years, R/o Gandhi Nagar, District- Jaipur (Raj.).
(Roll No. 15577).
8. Ramji Lal Sharma S/o Sh. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Titariya, Tehsil- Chaksu, District-
Jaipur (Raj.). (Roll No. 35868).
9. Mahendra Jakhar S/o Sh. Shivraj Jakhar, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Mana Bera, Ajmer Road, Raghunathpura, Post-
Peeh The Parbatsar, District- Nagaur (Raj.). (Roll No.
28303).
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (14 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
10. Chandra Wali D/o Sh. Gagan Bhojwani, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Near Hindu Pada Sanatan Dharma Temple,
District- Alwar (Raj.). (Roll No. 17602).
11. Arpit Kumawat S/o Sh. Nanu Ram Kumawat, Aged About
23 Years, R/o Vki Area, Laxminarayanpura, District-
Jaipur (Raj.). (Roll No. 16194).
12. Dilip Chouhan S/o Sh. Prakash, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
J-231, Behind Power House, Pratap Nagar, District-
Jodhpur (Raj.). (Roll No. 17623).
13. Jitesh Songara S/o Sh. Prakash Songara, Aged About 25
Years, R/o K-140, Indra Colony, Behind Police Chowki
Pratap Nagar, District- Jodhpur (Raj.). (Roll No. 15088).
14. Saloni Ojha D/o Sh. Bhanu Ojha, Aged About 21 Years, R/
o Ganesh Colony, Fatehpur, District- Shivpuri (M.p.). (Roll
No. 40948).
15. Aakansha Pandey D/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Aged
About 22 Years, R/o Krishna Puram Colony, Ward No. 10,
District- Shivpuri (M.p.). (Roll No. 40299).
16. Hina Soni D/o Sh. Rakesh Soni, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Near Radha Raman Temple, Old Shivpuri, District-
Shivpuri (M.p.). (Roll No. 32524).
17. Juli Soni D/o Sh. Kailash Soni, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Krishan Puram Colony, Fatehpur Road, District- Shivpuri
(M.p.). (Roll No. 43499).
18. Gagan Sharma S/o Sh. Omprakash Sharma, Aged About
21 Years, R/o Near Kothi No. 26, Fatehpur, Tongra Road,
District- Shivpuri (M.p.). (Roll No. 39245).
19. Zuber Khan S/o Sh. Shafiq Khan, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Aklera Old Bus Stand, Tehsil- Aklera, District-
Jhalawar (Raj.). (Roll No. 30083).
20. Mohd. Aaqib Khan S/o Sh. Abdul Qayuam Khan, Aged
About 21 Years, R/o Near Old Kotwali, Street Of Banduk
Walan, Mangalpura, District- Jhalawar (Raj.). (Roll No.
15272).
21. Sunil Natwadia S/o Sh. Ranjeet Ram, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Tan Ki Dhani, Mandabhopawas, Kalwar,
District- Jaipur (Raj.). (Roll No. 31191).
22. Shivam Bajpai S/o Sh. Ajai Bajpai, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Ward No. 31, Subhash Nagar Bhind, District- Bhind
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (15 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
(Raj.). (Roll No. 15401).
23. Rahul Pareva S/o Sh. Ramji Lal Parewa, Aged About 21
Years, R/o 203-204, Sindhu Nagar, Bhumiya Ji Temple,
Murlipura, District- Jaipur (Raj.). (Roll No. 15429).
24. Jyoti Sharma D/o Sh. Bhawani Shankar Sharma, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Plot No. 4, Shankar Vihar Vistar-B,
Murlipura Scheme, District- Jaipur (Raj.). (Roll No.
17481).
25. Sonali Sharma D/o Sh. Late Hariom Sharma, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Opp. Siddeshwar Mela Ground, District-
Shivpuri (M.p.). (Roll No. 30065).
26. Sourabh Chaturvedi S/o Sh. Om Prakash Sharma, Aged
About 20 Years, R/o Gandhi Nagar, District- Jaipur (Raj.).
(Roll No. 15578).
27. Hemant Lakhara S/o Sh. Satya Narayan, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Kumariya Kua, Jatiyon Ki Gali, District-
Jodhpur (Raj.). (Roll No. 15399).
28. Kiran Jangid D/o Sh. Pramendra Jangid, Aged About 24
Years, A-114, Shyam Nagar, Jhotwara, District- Jaipur
(Raj.). (Roll No. 26778).
29. Pawan Kumar Kumawat S/o Sh. Gopal Lal Kumawat, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Basri Khurd, District- Jaipur (Raj.).
(Roll No. 31190).
30. Deepesh Jain S/o Sh. Prem Narayan Jain, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Village Kharai, Post- Kharai, Tehsil- Kolaras,
District-Shivpuri (M.p.). (Roll No. 37950).
31. Shubham Sharma S/o Sh. Radheshyam, Aged About 20
Years, R/o 8/104, Chopasani Housing Board, District-
Jodhpur (Raj.). (Roll No. 17594).
32. Prema Ram S/o Sh. Kishna Ram, Aged About 21 Years, R/
o 136, Gorchiyo Ki Dhani, G/p- Parasala, Tehsil- Bapini,
District- Jodhpur (Raj.). (Roll No. 25805).
33. Pradeep Kumawat S/o Sh. Prahalad Kumawat, Aged
About 21 Years, R/o Lalpura, Tehsil-Amber, District- Jaipur
(Raj.). (Roll No. 37123).
34. Vishal Hatwal S/o Sh. Gajanand Hatwal, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Harijan Basti, Tehsil- Chomu, Kaladera,
District- Jaipur (Raj.). (Roll No. 33012).
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (16 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
35. Meenu Devanda D/o Sh. Mohan Lal Devanda, Aged About
22 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Dabri Rampura, Dabri,
District- Jaipur (Raj.). (Roll No. 38403).
36. Kavita Vaishnav D/o Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Vaishnav,
Aged About 25 Years, R/o House No. 61, Vishnu Laxmi
Nagar, Behind Rto Office, Bjs Colony, District- Jodhpur
(Raj.). (Roll No. 15451).
37. Dharmendra Sankhla D/o Sh. Jitendra Sankhla, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o 105, Nehru Nagar, Opp. B R Birla
School, Jhanwar Road, District- Jodhpur (Raj.). (Roll No.
25590).
38. Navdeep Ratnu S/o Sh. Chaindan Ratnu, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Karni Colony, Near Karni Mandir, District-
Nagaur (Raj.). (Roll No. 21804).
39. Lovely Longwani D/o Sh. Kamlesh Longwani, Aged About
33 Years, R/o 17E/277, Chopasani Housing Board,
District- Jodhpur (Raj.). (Roll No. 35948).
40. Kuldeep Singh Parihar S/o Sh. Deepak, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Navgrah Colony, Opp. Sector 2, Gol Pahadiya
Lashkar, Gwalior (M.p.). (Roll No. 18576).
41. Shashwat Yadav S/o Sh. Sanjay Yadav, Aged About 21
Years, R/o State Bank Colony, Shivaji Ward, District-
Sagar (M.p.). (Roll No. 17456).
42. Lakshman Kurmi S/o Sh. Kanhaiyalal, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Village- Amet, Post- Rajoua, District- Sagar
(M.p.). (Roll No. 26540).
43. Rohit Kumar Chourasia S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar Chourasia,
Aged About 23 Years, R/o Opp. Shiv Vihar Colony, Tili
Ward, District- Sagar (M.p.). (Roll No. 20076).
44. Amit S/o Sh. Ved Prakash, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Near
Shiv Mandir, Ward No. 10, H. No. 1275, Bhuna, District-
Fatehabad (Haryana). (Roll No. 15856).
45. Rahul Gole S/o Sh. Parimal Gole, Aged About 23 Years, R/
o Ganesh Pura, Near Footi Puliya Morena (M.p.). (Roll No.
33244).
46. Kuldeep Sharma S/o Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Indra Colony, Behind Vishnu Mandir, District-
Shivpuri (M.p.). (Roll No. 15035).
47. Banti Rathore S/o Sh. Ghan Shyam Rathore, Aged About
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (17 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
26 Years, R/o Village And Post- Kunwarpur, Tehsil And
District- Shivpuri (M.p.). (Roll No. 16031).
48. Rinkita Rawat D/o Sh. Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Village- Bagoda, Post- Kharai Jalim, Tehsil
Bairad, District- Shivpuri (M.p.). (Roll No. 17319).
49. Saurabh Lakshkar S/o Sh. Murari Lal, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Village And Post- Amol Patha, Tehsil- Karera,
District- Shivpuri (M.p.). (Roll No. 19948).
50. Aman Gupta S/o Sh. Mahesh Prasad Gupta, Aged About
21 Years, R/o City Centre Colony Karera, District- Shivpuri
(M.p.). (Roll No. 17379).
51. Poonam Sharma D/o Sh. Komal Prasad Sharma, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Near Maniyar Beej Godam, District-
Shivpuri (M.p.). (Roll No. 38313).
52. Anita Saraiya D/o Sh. Bhure Lal Saraiya, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Mukam Post Jasalpur, District- Hoshangabad
(M.p.). (Roll No. 30882).
53. Nitin Kumar Istwal S/o Sh. Rameshwar Prasad, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o House No. 102, Chandra Vihar Kargi
Grant, P.o.- Banjarawala, District- Dehradun (Uttrakhand).
(Roll No. 33326).
54. Sonal Shriwas S/o Sh. Santosh Kumar Shriwas, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o Sardar Patel Ward No. 15, Lalipur
Mandla (M.p.). (Roll No. 37329).
55. Siddharth Bhatnagar S/o Sh. Ramprakash Bhatnagar,
Aged About 23 Years, R/o Near Shivgir Mandir Marg,
Datia (M.p.). (Roll No. 15109).
56. Girraj S/o Sh. Bhoole Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Hassanpur Sohna, Nuh (Haryana). (Roll No. 17736).
57. Pramod Rajput S/o Sh. B.s. Rajput, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o House No. 164, Sector 11-A, Avas Vikas Colony,
Sikandra, District Agra (U.p.). (Roll No. 28513).
58. Ravindra Kumar Verma S/o Sh. Dhanraj Verma, Aged
About 21 Years, R/o Village- Malwani, 3 Barani, Nohar,
District- Hanumangarh (Raj.). (Roll No. 28150).
59. Pintu Ram Meena S/o Sh. Jai Ram Meena, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village And Post- Balahera, Tehsil Baswa,
District Dausa (Raj.). (Roll No. 15468).
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (18 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
60. Akanksha D/o Sh. Ramji Lal, Aged About 19 Years, R/o
Ward No.11, Prajapat Colony, Jhunjhunu (Raj.). (Roll No.
27164).
61. Nupur Khandelwal D/o Sh. Kaushal Khandelwal, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Khedliganj Bus Railway Station Road,
Atru Baran (Raj.). (Roll No. 39930).
62. Gourav S/o Sh. Raghuveer, Aged About 22 Years, R/o W
No. 2, Village Adarsh Nagar, P.o. Mainawali, District-
Hanumangarh (Raj.). (Roll No. 15714).
63. Harish S/o Sh. Devi Lal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village
And Post- Pakka Bhadwan, District- Hanumangarh (Raj.).
(Roll No. 28319).
64. Sunil Prajapat S/o Sh. Babulal Prajapat, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Vivekanand Nagar, Sonawa Ki Dungar, Ward
No. 35 New, District- Alwar (Raj.). (Roll No. 33686).
65. Kuldeep Yadav S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Village- Mundiya Khera, Post- Rajwara, Tehsil-
Mundawar, District- Alwar (Raj.). (Roll No. 26246).
66. Arti Soni D/o Sh. Mohan Lal Soni, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o 1 Ja 4 Kala Kuan, Housing Board, District (Alwar).
(Roll No. 27792).
67. Nandini Nama D/o Sh. Shivcharan Nama, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Plot No. 46, Printers Nagar, 1St Sitabari,
Sanganer, District- Jaipur (Raj.). (Roll No. 36794).
68. Harshal Nagar D/o Sh. Rajesh Nagar, Aged About 22
Years, R/o House No. 3026, Bagru Walo Ka Rasta, Purani
Basti, District- Jaipur (Raj.). (Roll No. 27708).
69. Pooja Swami D/o Sh. Prem Kumar Swami, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 74, Vinoba Basti, District- Sriganganagar
(Raj.). (Roll No. 27522).
70. Amit Kumar Soni S/o Sh. Bhawani Shankar Soni, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o Ward No. 22, Behind Cinema Hall,
Nohar, District- Hanumangarh (Raj.). (Roll No. 38478).
71. Lokesh Kumar Yadav S/o Sh. Brij Lal Yadav, Aged About
27 Years, R/o 29, Nayagaon Machari, Post- Para, Tehsil
Reni, District Alwar (Raj.). (Roll No. 15213).
72. Ponting Khandel S/o Sh. Dharam Chand Sharma, Aged
About 21 Years, R/o Village- Khorpuri, Post- Baroda Meo,
Tehsil- Laxmangarh, District- Hanumangarh (Raj.). (Roll
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (19 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
No. 29800).
73. Narendra Kumar Mehra S/o Sh. Daya Ram Mehra, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o Rajiv Colony, New Matunda Road,
Near Gas Godam, District- Bundi (Raj.). (Roll No. 34066).
74. Shyam Sunder S/o Sh. Mohan Lal, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o New Basti, Sogaria Main Road, Opp. Gaurav Traders
Kota Junction, District- Kota (Raj.). (Roll No. 24649).
75. Piyush Sen S/o Sh. Jaiprakash Sen, Aged About 21 Years,
R/o Indra Market, Baran (Raj.). (Roll No. 33594).
76. Kuldeep Sain S/o Sh. Ram Dayal Sain, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village And Post- Sop, Nadoti, District- Karauli
(Raj.). (Roll No. 25448).
77. Sojal Gupta S/o Sh. Rajendra Gupta, Aged About 25
Years, R/o N-26, Gandhi Nagar, District- Gwalior (M.p.).
(Roll No. 29058).
78. Riya Rathore D/o Sh. Mahendra Singh Rathore, Aged
About 20 Years, R/o 346, Panchwati, Near Poltry Farm,
Senthi, District- Chittorgarh (Raj.). (Roll No. 27193).
79. Chandraveer Singh S/o Sh. Durga Lal Parihar, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Near Rswc-1, Panchwati Senthi, District-
Chittorgarh (Raj.). (Roll No. 25690).
80. Narayan Lal Sharma S/o Sh. Dinesh Chandra Sharma,
Aged About 33 Years, R/o 27, R.a. Colony, Chamti Khera
Road, District- Chittorgarh (Raj.). (Roll No. 23364).
81. Suman Ghausalya D/o Ramawtar Ghausalya, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Dhani Ghosalya Wali, Village And Post-
Patwari Ka Bass, District- Sikar (Raj.). (Roll No. 40826).
82. Kusum Bhati D/o Khemchand Bhati, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Bhati Farm House, Chundiya Road, Merta City,
District- Nagaur (Raj.). (Roll No. 28475).
83. Ragini Awasthi D/o Sh. Prayag Narayan Awasthi, Aged
About 19 Years, R/o L-381, Keshavpuram, Awas Vikas-1,
Kanpur Nagar (U.p.). (Roll No. 25228).
84. Damodar Prasad S/o Sh. Shankar Lal Kumawat, Aged
About 38 Years, R/o Ward No. 7, Chejaro Ka Mohalla,
Danta, District- Sikar (Raj.). (Roll No. 30550).
85. Om Prakash Meena S/o Sh. Jodha Ram Meena, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Village- Hardi, Post- Kunthada Khurd,
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (20 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
Tehsil- Bassi, District- Jaipur (Raj.). (Roll No. 38856).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court Principal Seat Jodhpur, Through Its
Registrar General, Jodhpur (Raj.).
2. Rajasthan High Court Principal Seat Jodhpur, Through Its
Registrar (Examination), Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16239/2021
1. Divesh Kumar S/o Sompal Singh, Aged About 38 Years,
Ward Number 8, Mohala Holika Mandir, Thakur Dwara,
Muradabad, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Anees Ahmad S/o Raees Ahmad, Aged About 21 Years,
Ghosipura, Patti Kalan, Post Rahmatganj, Suar, Rampur,
Uttar Pradesh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through The Registrar
General.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16534/2021
Rahul Jatoliya S/o Shri Hari Lal Jatoliya, Aged About 21 Years, R/
o 227, Maharana Pratap Nagar, District Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jodhpur,
Through Its Registrar General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
3. Arya College Of Engineering And I.t., (Arya-I Old
Campus), Sp-42, Riico Industrial Kukas, Delhi Road,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2422/2022
Tejpal S/o Shri Gheesu Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 29 Years,
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (21 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
Resident Of Village Shyampura Via Phaglwa, Tehsil - Dodh, Dist.
- Sikar At Present Resident Of 65, Prithvipura, Rasala Road,
Jodhpur,. (Roll No. 15189).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through The Registrar
General.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3958/2022
Narendra Mehra S/o Ramavtar Mehra, Aged About 22 Years, Plot
No.55 Mehra Bhavan Sushil Public School Opposite Sushilpura
Ajmer Road Sodala Jaipur Rajasthan 302006
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through The
Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
3. Arya Institute Of Engineering And Research Centre,
Through The Examiner, Sp-40, Riico Industrial Area, Near
Hotel Le, Meridien, Delhi Road, Kukas, Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3964/2022
1. Meenu Verma D/o Hanuman Sahai Verma, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village - Gila Ki Nangal, Post - Naila, Via-
Kanota, Tehsil Bassi, Jaipur, Gila Ki Nangal, Jaipur
Rajasthan 303012.
2. Mamta Vyas D/o Kanhaiya Lal Vyas, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Corner 60 A Bhagwati Nagar 2Nd Kartarpura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan 302015.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Rajasthan High Court, Through The Registrar
General, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (22 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
3. Arya College Of Engineering, Riico Industrial Area, Kukas,
Delhi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3978/2022
Phool Meena D/o Chouthmal, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of
Plot No. 09, Mahadev Nagar, Meeno Ki Dhani, Charan Nadi, 2Nd
Murlipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through The
Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court Premises,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Rajasthan High Court Premises, Jodhpur.
3. Arya College Of Engineering I.t., Through Examiner, (Arya
- I Old Campus) Sp-42, Riico Industrial Area, Kukas, Delhi
Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3998/2022
1. Bhupesh Khandelwal S/o Rameshwar Khandelwal, Aged
About 31 Years, 57-A, Ram Vihar Vistar, Goner-Lunaywas
Road, Agra Road, Jaipur (Roll No.31668)
2. Shubham Kumar Sharma S/o Chiranji Lal Sharma, Aged
About 25 Years, H.no.2898, Bhindo Ka Rasta, First
Crossing Indira Bajar, Jaipur (Roll No.16667)
3. Sumant Dubey S/o Virendra Dubey, Aged About 25 Years,
S D 157, Shanti Nagar, Hatwara Road, Jaipur (Roll
No.15074)
4. Aditya Vashistha S/o Radhey Shyam Sharma, Aged About
26 Years, 35, Pratap Nagar Old Ramgarh Mode, Amer
Road, Jaipur (Roll No.31148)
5. Khushwant Singh Kumawat S/o Yogesh Chandra
Kumawat, Aged About 30 Years, 30, Jagdish Colony,
Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur (Roll No.18690)
6. Hansa Prajapati D/o Rajendra Kumar, Aged About 34
Years, P.no.37B, Laxmi Nagar-I, Chhopolo Ki Dhani, Dhani
Kumawatan, Sanganer, Jaipur (Roll No.15698)
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (23 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
7. Vimal Gupta S/o Devendra Gupta, Aged About 24 Years,
P.no.7, Ganesh Vihar First, Behind Jda Block-B,
Naradpura, Jaipur (Roll No.16833)
8. Prakash Chand S/o Surgyan, Aged About 26 Years, Ward
No.18, Kacholiya Road, Gora Ki Dhani, Behind Vinayak
School, Chomu, Jaipur (Roll No.28383)
9. Anjali Aseeja D/o Sohan Lal Aseeja, Aged About 27 Years,
33/180, Sector 3, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur (Roll
No.38445)
10. Ankur Gupta S/o Vishnu Gupta, Aged About 26 Years,
Near Vajirpur Gate, Opposite Jain Mandir, Bada Bajar,
Karauli (Roll No.26219)
11. Ramesh Thakur S/o Ram Naresh Thakur, Aged About 27
Years, Village Rahimpur Rudauli, Post Bikrampur Bandey,
Samstipur, Bihar (Roll No.32814)
12. Ravindra Kumar S/o Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 35
Years, Near Laxmi Place, Subhash Chowk, Bayana,
Bharatpur (Roll No.40407)
13. Preeti, D/o Chaturbhuj Prasad Agrawal, R/o Subhash
Nagar, Behind Sony Beauty Parlour, Bharatpur (Roll
No.17320)
14. Pavan Kumar, S/o Anandi Lal, R/o Pathan Para, In Front
Of Forest Office, Bayana, Bharatpur (Roll No.35138)
15. Arshad Aman Khan, S/o Amjad Khan, R/o Pathan Pada,
Bayana, Bharatpur (Roll No.23885)
16. Om Prakash Meena, S/o Jodharam Meena R/o Hardi Post
Kuthara Khurd, Hardi, Kanota, Jaipur, Rajasthan (Roll
No.38856)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. High Court Of Judicature Of Raj., At Jodhpur, Through Its
Registrar General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
3. Arya College Of Engineering And I.t. (Arya-I Old
Campus), Sp-42, Riico Industrial Area, Kukas, Delhi Road,
Jaipur
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:03:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (24 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Sandhu with
Mr. S.K. Shreemali,
Mr. Dishant Kiroriwal
Mr. Chirag Kalani.
Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari with
Mr. Yuvraj Singh Mertia.
Mr. Suniel Purohit.
Mr. Vivek Shrimali.
Mr. Manish Rajpurohit for
Mr. Rakesh Arora.
Mr. Ankit Prakash Singh with
Mr. Harshit Yadav.
Mr. Pradeep Mathur.
Mr. Narendra Singh Hada.
Mr. Ramrakh Sharma (through VC)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Adv. assisted
by Mr. Aniket Tater and
Ms. Sapna Vaishnav.
Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Vishnu Kant Sharma (through VC)
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Judgment
Reportable
Reserved on 15/02/2024
Pronounced on 04/03/2024
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy
though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore,
for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts
and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15641/2021, while treating the same as
a lead case; thus, the rival submissions of the parties and the
observations of the Court, in the present judgment, would also be
based, particularly, on the factual matrix of the lead case.
1.1 The prayer clauses read as under:-
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (25 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
"It is therefore, humbly prayed on behalf of the
petitioners that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and
a) The impugned Notice dated 28.10.2021 (Annex.8)
issued by the Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High
Court, Jodhpur declaring the revised result of Shorthand
Test and Computer Test for Stenographer Examination may
kindly be declared illegal and accordingly be set aside;
b) The Impugned Notice dated 30.10.2021 (Annex.9)
issued by the Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High
Court, Jodhpur rescheduling the interview rounds for the
newly selected candidates in the revised result of
Shorthand Test and Computer Test for Stenographer
Examination may kindly be declared illegal, without
jurisdiction and accordingly be set aside;
c) The Respondents may kindly be directed to upheld the
previous final result of recruitment to the posts of
Stenographers Examination 2020 published on 31.07.2021
(Annex.6);
d) The Petitioners be given joining upon the posts of
Stenographer Grade-III (Hindi & English) and
Stenographer as per the final result of Stenographers
Examination 2020 published on 31.07.2021;
e) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in
favour of the petitioners;"
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned
counsel of the petitioners, are that the respondents issued a
detailed advertisement dated 18.01.2020 inviting applications
from the eligible candidates for direct recruitment on the post of
Stenographer Grade-III (Hindi/English) under the establishment of
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (26 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
the District Courts, Legal Services Authorities and Permanent Lok
Adalats in the State.
2.1. The petitioners submitted the application form and
participated in the recruitment process (Shorthand test and
Computer test) which was held between 03.04.2021 to
08.04.2021; thereafter, the respondents declared the results on
30.06.2021, whereby the petitioners were declared provisionally
qualified for the interview.
2.2. Subsequently, the respondents issued a notice dated
06.07.2021 wherein it was notified that the interview for the
provisionally qualified candidates would be held between
28.07.2021 and 30.07.2021 in two slots and the candidates would
be required to bring the requisite documents in original, as
stipulated in the list appended to the said notice. Thereafter, the
respondents declared the final results on 31.07.2021 and since
the candidates selected were less in numbers, therefore, the
earlier decided margin of error i.e. 5% was enhanced to 15%,
meaning thereby, such errors were stipulated to be deducted from
the total number of words.
2.3. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid results, certain candidates
filed a representation before the respondents and also filed Writ
petition before this Hon'ble Court i.e.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
11003/2021 & Other connected matters. A Division Bench of this
Hon'ble Court vide order dated 25.10.2021 disposed of the said
petition without going into the merits of the case, as the
respondents were going to revise the results of the examination in
question. Subsequently, the respondents vide the impugned order
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (27 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
28.10.2021 cancelled the provisional results dated 30.06.2021
and the final results dated 31.07.2021 on the ground that while
preparing the result on earlier occasion, the software agency did
not give effect of mistakes committed by the candidates and the
results were published based on the marks obtained by the
candidates with no deduction of the errors, and the marks were
awarded only on the basis of correct words typed and some other
discrepancies were also noticed. In furtherance, the respondents
issued the revised result and cut off marks; 46 candidates, who
were selected in the previous results, were once again declared as
selected in the revised results as well, whereas around 350
candidates, who were declared selected in previous results had
not been selected in the revised result. Thereafter, the
respondents vide impugned notice dated 30.10.2021 issued a
schedule for the interview of the selected candidates (except the
aforesaid 46 candidates) selected in the revised result.
2.4. The petitioners in WP No.15641/2021, lead case, filed an
affidavit, wherein it was mentioned that during pendency of the
writ petition, the respondents issued the final results of the
recruitment in question on 15.12.2021, which as per the
petitioners, contained anomalies as, amongst others, there was
neither any fixed method nor formula used before declaration of
the said results and nowhere it has been clarified that as to how
calculations were made and how the cut off list was prepared, and
thus, apart from the above impugned orders/notices, the
petitioners are assailing the said revised final results dated
15.12.2021 as well.
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (28 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
3. Thus, being aggrieved of the aforesaid, the present petitions
have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the afore-
quoted reliefs.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
respondents had previously published the results of the shorthand
and computer tests with selection of 422 candidates, but later
came up with the technical errors in the software at the time of
evaluation of answer-sheets of the candidates, and on that ground
the respondents revised the results, whereby the candidates who
were selected earlier had not been declared selected, and
therefore, issuance of the revised results is illegal and against the
principles of natural justice.
4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents
revised the results on the ground that errors were not counted, at
the time of evaluation of answer sheets of the candidates, but if
the errors were not counted, then in what way the respondents
arrived at the conclusion of expanding the scope of errors from
5% to 15%. It was also submitted that if the errors was not
counted previously i.e. before publication of the earlier results,
then in the revised results the merit must have gone down and
not on the higher side, as is discernible from a bare perusal of
both the results.
4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that after the revised results,
almost 85% candidates, including the petitioners, who were
previously declared selected, are not being selected as per the
revised results, and in that case, the respondents are duty to
bound to at least subject the answer sheet of the candidates to
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (29 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
inspection and make the same open to public domain, so as to
show that a fair and transparent method has been adopted in
finalizing the recruitment process in question, which is clearly
absent in the present case.
4.3. Learned counsel further submitted that for the selection of
Stenographer (Hindi), a speed of 70 words per minute had been
stipulated, and for Stenographer (English), a speed of 80 words
per minute was stipulated, in Shorthand Speed category, contrary
to what had been given in the previous results, wherein there
were numerous fluctuations with regard to the shorthand speed. It
was also submitted there is neither a fixed method nor a formula
which was used before publishing the whole results.
4.4. Learned counsel also submitted that as per the respondents,
the results were revised due to technical error, and in that case,
the respondents, before revising the results, ought to have
checked the whole data and records, and only thereafter, in case
anomalies or erroneous evaluation is detected, the respondents
may be able to justify their impugned action, but the respondents
have proceeded to revise the results in a hurried manner and
within a short span of time, which itself creates a doubt upon the
method adopted by the respondents in conducting and finalizing
the recruitment process in question.
4.5 In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon
the following judgments:-
(a) Sachin Kumar and Ors. Vs Delhi Subordinate Service
Selection Board & Ors. (2021) 4 SCC 631;
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (30 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
(b) Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs Rajasthan High Court & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No 2634/2013 decided on 20.03.2013) by the
Hon'ble Apex Court;
(c) Krishna Rai (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. Vs Banaras Hindu
University Through Registrar & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 4578-
4580/2022, decided on 16.06.2022) by the Hon'ble Apex Court;
(d) Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. Vs Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. AIR
2020 SC 2060;
(e) Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs Shakti Raj & Ors. (1997) 9 SCC 527;
(f) Asha Kaul & Ors. Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors
(1993) 2 SCC 573.
5. On the other hand, Mr.Manoj Bhandari, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr.Aniket Tater & Ms.Sapna Vaishnav; Mr.A.K.
Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Vishnu Kant
Sharma, appearing on the behalf of the respondents, while
opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the
petitioners, submitted that the respondents have already issued
appointment orders for both Stenographer (English) and
Stenographer (Hindi), and the petitioners while filing the instant
petitions have not impleaded the persons, selected in pursuance of
the revised results, as party in this case, and therefore, the
present petitions are not maintainable on that sole ground.
5.1. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that on 03.12.2021
the information regarding additional requirement of the
stenographers was received from District Judges and Member
Secretary, RSLSA, and therefore, additional 60 candidates were
called for interview on 14.12.2021 and the revised final results of
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (31 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
482 candidates were declared on 15.12.2021, who were called for
interview. Subsequent to the interview on 11.11.2021, 12.11.2021
and 14.12.2021, the appointment orders were issued vide order
dated 15.12.2021, and thus, it is apparent on the face of the
record that the entire selection process is completed in a fair,
transparent and impartial manner, and therefore, the petitioners
have no right to challenge the selection process at all.
5.2. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that during the
earlier process of the examination in question, the software
agency did not adopt the actual correct words in the marking
system and the results were published based on the marks
obtained by the candidates without proper deduction of the errors,
and the marks were awarded only on the basis of correct words
typed and some other discrepancies were also noticed; the actual
marks can only be ascertained by applying the formula i.e. "Actual
Correct Words=Total Dictated Words-Actual Committed Mistakes."
5.2.1. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the previous
result was based on the marks calculated on the basis of correct
words typed, whereas in the revised result marks were calculated
on the basis of actual correct words, which were ascertained by
deducting the actual committed mistakes from total dictated
words, and then the cut off marks went up. Therefore, as per
learned Senior Counsel, after appropriately applying the aforesaid
formula, the respondents revised the results, by undertaking the
impugned action.
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (32 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
5.3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the policy
decision regarding increasing the margin of mistake from 5% to
15% was taken even before the first result was declared and the
same was made applicable to the entire selection process in
question. It was further submitted that the respondents found
some technical issues in the evaluation and result software, while
preparing the previous result dated 30.06.2021, and at that time,
the aforesaid formula was not appropriately applied.
5.4. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the total dictated
words in the examination in question were 420, however, in the
Shift-1 on 03.04.2021, in Arya Institute of Engineering and
Technology (Center Code 1001); dictation of passage started after
48 words and total 372 (420-48) words were dictated. In the
previous result dated 30.06.2021, the speed was calculated by
reckoning the maximum prescribed time as 5.19 minutes which
was technically not correct, and in the revised results, the speed
was calculated by reckoning the maximum prescribed time as
5.314285714 minutes and 15 % margin of mistakes regarding the
372 words was 55.80, minutes, which is technically correct.
5.5. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the above
backdrop, no right was created in favour of the petitioners
because no appointment was given and no document verification
was undertaken by the Appointing Authority in pursuance of the
previous result. It was also submitted that as per Clause 13 Sub
Clause 4 (Method of Evaluation) of the advertisement in question,
the omission of words or figures etc. were stipulated to be counted
as mistakes. The said clause is reproduced as hereunder-:
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (33 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
"(4) ewY;kadu dh fof/k (Method of Evaluation):
(1) The mistakes shall be counted as full or partial
mistakes, as the case may be :-
(a) The following should be counted as full mistakes:-
(1) Omission of words of figure.
(2) Substitution of wrong word or figure.
(3) Misspelling.
(4) Two partial mistakes will be equal to one full
mistake.
(b) The following should be counted as partial mistakes:-
(1) Error Omission in punctuation.
(2) Wrong use of capital or small letters.
(3) Wrong indentation of paragraph.
(2) The margin of 5% mistakes may be allowed. If the
mistakes/omissions are more than 5% of the dictated
passage, the excess number of mistakes over 5% shall be
deducted from the total number or words dictated and the
speed will be calculated."
5.6. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the aforesaid
formula is uniformly applicable in the previous recruitment as well
as present recruitment, and shall be continued to be applicable in
future recruitment also, and therefore, there is no illegality and no
arbitrariness in the impugned actions of the respondents in
declaring the revised results in question.
5.7. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon
the following judgments:-
(a) Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Ors. (2017) 4
SCC 357;
(b) Secy. (Health), Deptt. Of Health and F.W. & Ors. Vs Anita
Puri & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 282;
(c) Prabodh Verma & Ors. Vs State of UP & Ors. (1984) 4 SCC
251;
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (34 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
6. In their rejoinder arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners preferred the instant
petitions before publication of the final revised results and the
Hon'ble Court has ordered that the such final results will be
subject to the outcome of the writ petitions, and therefore, the
respondents' action is not justified on this count alone.
6.1. It was further submitted that when the mistakes were
considered in revised results, then the cut off marks must have
decreased and not enhanced. It was also submitted that the
formula of ascertaining the correct words was neither mentioned
in the advertisement in question nor the same was mentioned in
the amended/revised results.
6.2. It was also submitted that as per Rule 10 of the Rajasthan
District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986, the
candidates must qualify for minimum speed of stenography, only
then he or she can be declared eligible for the further process of
examination. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the action of the
respondents not only lead to giving undue benefit to the less
meritorious candidates, but also resulted into issuance of the
wrong results.
6.3. It was further submitted that the respondents in reply itself
stated that in Arya Institute of Engineering and Technology
(Center Code 1002), dictation of passage was started after 97
words (total words to be dictated were 420) and that till the end,
in total, the dictation was continued only upto 108 words, which
clearly confused the candidates and the respondents created
irregularity during the examination in question.
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (35 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.
8. This Court observes that the respondents issued a detailed
advertisement dated 18.01.2020 inviting applications from the
eligible candidates for direct recruitment on the post of
Stenographer Grade-III (Hindi/English) under the establishment of
the District Courts, Legal Services Authorities and Permanent Lok
Adalats in the State. The petitioners submitted the application
form and participated in the recruitment process (Shorthand test
and Computer test) which was held between 03.04.2021 and
08.04.2021; thereafter, the respondents declared the results on
30.06.2021, whereby the petitioners were declared provisionally
qualified for the interview.
8.1. Subsequently, the respondents issued notice for interview of
the provisionally qualified candidates in the two slots and
thereafter, the respondents declared results vide notice dated
30.06.2021 and final results on 31.07.2021.
8.2. Aggrieved of the aforesaid results, certain candidates filed
the aforesaid Writ petition before the Division Bench of this
Hon'ble Court, whereupon, the Hon'ble Court vide order dated
25.10.2021 disposed of the petition without going into the merits
of the case, as mentioned above. Subsequently, the respondents
vide impugned order dated 28.10.2021 cancelled the previous
results.
9. Thereafter, the respondents vide impugned notice dated
30.10.2021, issued schedule of the interview for the candidates
declared selected in the revised results, and thereafter, owing to
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (36 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
the additional requirement of the stenographers, additional 60
candidates were called for the interview on 14.12.2021 and
revised final results were declared vide the impugned order dated
15.12.2021 and the appointment orders were accordingly issued.
10. This Court observes that previously, the respondents
declared the results, but thereafter it was found that the proper
prescribed formula of evaluation of the answer sheet of the
candidates could not be applied due to some technical errors in
the evaluation software. The said formula is reproduced as
hereunder:-
"Speed = Actual correct words typed + Permissible 5%
mistakes or actual
committed mistakes
(whichever is less)
___________________________________
Duration of dictation (6 minutes)
Marks =Actual Correct Words typed x Max. Marks (100)
_____________________________________
Total dictated words
Actual Correct Words = Total dictated words - actual
committed mistakes"
10.1. This Court further observes that the policy decision
regarding the enhancement of margin of mistakes from 5% to
15% was taken before the first result and it was applicable to all
candidates uniformly, and therefore, there is no illegality in the
said decision which is taken by the respondents.
11. This Court also observes that the total dictated words were
420 and the formula was Actual Correct Words=Total Dictated
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (37 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
Words-Actual Committed Mistakes. This Court further observes
that due to errors in the software, the marks were awarded in
previous process, only on the basis of the correct words typed
instead of the actual correct words.
11.1. For better understanding, the results of some candidates as
reproduced in the reply of the respondents reads as under:-
PREVIOUS RESULT
As per results 30.06.2021 & 31.07.2021
Roll No. Correct Actual Speed Marks Remarks
Words committed
typed mistake
25595 389 34.5 70.583 92.619 Selected
35868 371 50 70.167 88.333 Selected
39245 361 61 70.333 85.952 Selected
27522 357 65 70 85 Selected
38478 364 65 71.167 86.667 Selected
37319 403 17.5 70.083 95.952 Ranked 1st
33371 406 11 69.5 96.667 Failed
17868 404 11.5 69.25 96.19 Failed
38516 403 13 69.3 95.952 Failed
REVISED RESULT
As per results dated 28.10.2021 & 15.12.2021
Roll No. Correct Actual Actual Speed Marks Remarks
Words committed correct
typed mistake words
25595 389 34.5 385.5 70 91.786 Not
Selected
35868 371 50 370 70 88.095 Not
Selected
39245 361 61 359 70 85.476 Not
Selected
27522 357 65 355 69.667 84.524 Failed
38478 364 65 355 69.667 84.524 Failed
37319 403 17.5 402.5 70 95.833 Ranked
36th
33371 406 11 409 70 97.381 Ranked 1st
17868 404 11.5 408.5 70 97.262 Ranked 2nd
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (38 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
38516 403 13 407 70 96.905 Ranked 3rd
11.2. For more better understanding, this Court takes one
example from the aforesaid table, which is Roll No. 25595; the
total of 420 words were dictated to the candidate and the actual
correct words typed were 385.5 and the actual mistake committed
were 34.5 (385.5+34.5=420 words) as per the formula which is
applied by the respondents in the revised results; and in second
column of the aforesaid, is the previous result, Correct Words
Typed were 389 (389+34.5= 423.5), which clearly shows that in
the previous results, the formula was not correctly applied and the
same was reflected in the aforesaid table as well as aforesid
example.
12. This Court also observes that in some of the
institutions/examination centres, in some shifts of the examination
in question, dictation of words was started later on, and that
complete dictation of 420 words was also not given. This Court
also noticed that though certain candidates were given lesser time
for transcribing the dictation, but at the same time, the words
dictated to them were also lesser in the same proportion, thus,
maintaining uniformity as regards all the candidates in the
examination in question.
13. This Court further observes that the aforementioned formula
for evaluation of the answer sheet of the candidates is in vogue
even before the present recruitment and also in the subsequent
recruitment processes of the stenographer. However, in the
previous results, in this recruitment the formula could not be
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (39 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
applied due to technical reasons, and when the respondents found
such errors, they revised results, after proper application of the
formula, which is justified in law.
14. This Court also observes that in the previous process, the
respondents did not issue any appointment order and no
verification of documents of the candidates was undetaken, and
therefore, the joining on the post in question does not arise at all.
Thereafter, the respondents revised the results vide impugned
orders and issued the appointment orders to the selected
candidates in the year 2021 and all the selected candidates upon
their joining, are working at the respective place for last more
than two years and the said candidates are not even party in the
present petitions.
15. This Court further observes that no right has been created in
favour of the petitioners, because the previous result itself does
not stand due to non-application of the computation formula in an
appropriate manner, which is critical to the evaluation of the
answer sheet of the candidates.
16. This Court also observes that for the purpose of public
employment, it is necessary to select the meritorious candidates
and it is very important to apply the proper formula and select the
candidates who secured the higher marks, and therefore, in
absence of application of the prescribed formula, due to technical
error in the evaluation software, the action taken by the
respondents in declaring revised results is justified, and the same
also protected the rights of the meritorious candidates as provided
under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (40 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
17. This Court further observes that the respondents rectified the
mistakes by way of the revised results which is the sole option
available to them, because for the purpose of recruitment in
question, the requirement of candidates cannot come in the way
of detecting the technical errors and taking follow up action i.e.
revision of results, which has been duly done by the respondents
in the present case by properly applying the prescribed
formulation for evaluation of the answer sheet of the candidates.
The said exercise of the respondents does not suffer from any
illegality or arbitrariness.
18. This Court further observes that the aforementioned formula
in not a new one, which was made applicable for the first time by
the respondents, as it was made applicable in the recruitment
processes in the past as well and has been made applicable in the
subsequent recruitment processes also. Thus, on that count also,
the impugned action of the respondents is justified in law.
19. This Court also observes that the prescribed formula so
applied was not mentioned in the advertisement but it is not a
case of changing the rules of the game, because in the selection
process in question the prescribed formula was in vogue even
before issuance of the advertisement in question, and the same
has remained applicable for the subsequent selection processes as
well. Therefore, the entire selection process is faultless, without
any illegality and the formula has been applied uniformly for all
the candidates, irrespective of whether the same has been
mentioned in the advertisement or not. Moreover, the aforesaid
prescribed formula is part of the method of evaluation, and not
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (41 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
the method of recruitment, and method of recruitment has been
duly mentioned in the advertisement. This Court further observes
that the respondents revised the results to ensure the
transparency, and for the said purpose, amongst others, the
prescribed and uniform formula for evaluation has been applied.
20. The judgments cited on the behalf of the petitioners do not
rendered any assistance to their case.
21. Thus, in light of the above observations and looking into the
factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit
case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present
petitions.
22. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All
pending applications stand disposed of.
Per Rajendra Prakash Soni, J.
1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared
by my learned brother Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and I
am in complete and respectful agreement with him. However,
having regard to the importance of the issue involved, I deem it
appropriate to pen down few of my own views to supplement the
reasoning, in addition to the opinion of my brother Judge.
2. The task of preparing result was given to an outsourced
technical agency which was well within jurisdiction of respondent
recruiting authority. A computer program, based on the "method
of evaluation" to prepare the results was created by the agency
itself. The agency was expected to prepare computer programme
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (42 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
by correctly applying the "method of evaluation", as determined
by the recruiting authority.
3. When representations were received by the respondent after
declaration of the first result dated 31.07.2021, raising issue of
technical deficiencies in computerized evaluation programme and
writ petitions were also filed, in such a situation, it was necessary
and expedient for the respondents to examine the way the
computerized evaluation was worked-out and it processed the
evaluation of shorthand answer sheets. It was justified on the part
of the respondents to do so, as the respondents could not have
turned a blind eye to the objections raised.
4. Upon examining the computerized evaluation programme, it
was found that due to inadvertence, "the mistakes" were deducted
from the total words typed by the candidate, instead of from
"total words dictated". The agency did not account for mistakes
properly. Due to this, the "evaluation method" could not be
applied correctly as notified in recruitment advertisement. In the
light of various representations received, competent authority
revisited the assessment made by the agency and decided to
rectify technical errors.
5. In my view, the respondent typically had the right to rectify
errors found in results which was found to have been committed
by a third party i.e. the agency. Ensuring the accuracy of result
was crucial for correctness, fairness and integrity in the
recruitment process. The purpose of rectifying the mistakes was to
ensure that candidates receive the merit they rightfully earned
and that their achievements are accurately reflected. Rectifying
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (43 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
the mistakes demonstrates respondents' commitment to
transparency and accountability as respondents were accountable
for the accuracy of candidates' assessment. It shows that the
respondent took the concern seriously and was willing to take
appropriate actions to address them. This was also essential for
upholding the credibility, fairness and trustworthiness of
recruitment process.
6. In such a situation, the revision of result had become
inevitable and same has been done redressing the grievances of
the persons concerned. The results were declared finally after
correcting the errors to ensure an error free result. Neither the
method of evaluation was changed nor the norms of selections
were altered in the midst of the selection process.
7. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that revision of result could not have been applied for
the current recruitment or it was a case changing the rules of the
race once the race had commenced, does not hold water.
8. Now question arises whether a wrongly selected person has
the right to get an appointment? When the evaluation method
upon which the selection of candidates was to be based, could not
be applied correctly due to technical reasons, then the selection
based on an incorrect evaluation could not be materialised, nor
could the individuals selected in error have any legal rights.
9. The main question for consideration is whether a legitimate
expectation has arisen due to the revision of the result by the
respondent, whether it is a matter of change of evaluation method
and if so, what remedy can be granted to the petitioners for
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (44 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
breach of such expectation. In my view, if a candidate has been
wrongly selected for a position and the selection was made in
violation of prescribed norms, the wrongly selected person has no
legal right to the appointment. Such selection process does not
confirm any right to any candidate for getting an appointment.
10. I am clearly of the view that beneficiaries of a wrong
selection process lack the legal right to challenge a subsequent
correct selection process as they do not acquire any prescriptive
right to be appointed on a particular post and therefore, revision
of the result by the respondents would not confer the petitioners
any right to challenge the selection process. In such a situation, if
a new result has been declared after correcting the technical
errors in the evaluation process then no irregularity or illegality
can be challenged.
11. The scheme, syllabus, and method of evaluation of the
examination were clearly outlined in the advertisement dated
18.01.2020. Having knowledge of these details, the petitioner
participated in the examination, therefore, after failing in the
examination, the petitioners have no right to challenge the
method of evaluation.
12. The salient features of the scheme of examination and
method of evaluation was as follows:-
A. The short-hand test was of 6 minutes duration,
during which the speed of dictation in English language
was 80 words per minute, resulting in a total of 480 words
dictation to be given by the examiner. Candidates were
expected to type this dictation within 50 minutes.
B. A total of 6 types of mistakes were enumerated as
follows:-
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (45 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
(i) Omission of words or figures
(ii) Substitution of wrong words or figures
(iii) Misspelling
(iv) Error or omission in punctuation
(v) Wrong use of capital or small letters
(vi) Wrong indention of paragraphs
C. Margin of 5% mistakes were allowed which was later
increased to 15%
D. Mistakes were to be deducted from the total number
of the words dictated.
13. It is true that no distinct formula for the evaluation of the
short-hand test was mentioned in the advertisement. However,
the method of evaluation was clear in the description of the
evaluation method itself. The fact of deducing mistakes from the
total "words dictated" was made clear in the advertisement itself.
14. In such a situation, after deducting the "total number of
mistakes committed" from the "total words dictated", the words
remaining constitute the "total correctly typed words" by the
candidate. The shorthand paper was of 100 marks. In this case,
dividing the total number of "correctly typed words" by the total
number of "words dictated" and multiply it by 100, gives the
candidates "marks obtained", and this could have been the only
way to calculate the marks of short-hand test.
15. The correctness of subtracting "mistakes committed" from
the "words dictated" has been disputed by the learned counsel for
the petitioners.
16. For better appreciation, this can be understood through two
illustrations.
17. First, in English, if a candidate types all the 480 words within
the prescribed period of 50 minutes and makes "zero" mistakes,
then his total number of "correctly typed words" will be 480, and
in this case, he will be said to have scored 100% marks.
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (46 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
18. Second, if a candidate types 460 out of 480 words in the
prescribed 50-minutes duration for typing and he also commits
"zero" mistakes, then the total number of "correctly typed words"
will be 460. In this scenario, it cannot be said that he has scored
100%, because "Omission" is also a mistake and he has
committed 20 "omission" mistakes. In this situation, he will be
said to have earned 95.83% marks although all the words he
typed were correct. This is why "total words dictated" was made
the basis of performance evaluation.
19. In the light of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the
subsequently correctly implemented evaluation method came as a
surprise to the petitioners.
20. The next and very important plank of the argument on behalf
of the petitioners is that after giving effect of mistakes committed
by the candidates, the cut off in the revised result increased,
which should ideally have decreased from the earlier cut-off,
owing to the negative marking that was earlier omitted due to the
error of agency.
21. I am not impressed by the submissions of learned counsels
for the petitioners. This is an argument which at first blush looks
attractive but on closer scrutiny it is not as sound as it is
attractive. It cannot be accepted for the simple reason that if we
first deduct the mistakes by the number of a smaller digit (that is
total words typed by the candidate) and secondly, by the number
of a larger digit (that is total words dictated), the numerical result
obtained from the latter process will definitely be higher than the
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (47 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
earlier result. In this process, the marks obtained by a candidate
will increase and shall not decrease.
22. This can be understood with an example. If a given
candidate types 460 words out of the total dictated 480 words in
English and makes 10 mistakes of typing, then the difference in
marks obtained in the first and second result will be as follows:
Particulars Ist evaluation IInd evaluation
Total mistakes committed
(20 mistakes of omissions plus 10
mistakes of typing)
(Note- In the first result, since 30
mistakes were subtracted from the "total
typed words", the total number of
"correctly typed words" was 430.
Whereas, in the second result, since 30
mistakes have been subtracted from the
"total words dictated", the total number of
"correctly typed words" was 450)
Marks obtained 89.58 % 93.75 %
(According to the formula for calculating
percentage i.e. correctly typed words X
100 ÷ Total words dictated)
23. Due to the reasons mentioned above, increase in the cut-off
marks from 89.58 % to 93.75 % was natural in the above
example. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the said argument
as well.
24. The decision to increase the margin of mistakes from 5% to
15% was equally applied in declaring both the results and was
made effective in the context of each candidate. In this contest,
the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is
completely baseless. This was done to increase the probability of
[2024:RJ-JD:9721-DB] (48 of 48) [CW-15630/2021]
having fill-in all the posts and avoiding possibility of posts
remaining vacant so that the recruitment process could be avoided
again and again.
25. It is also pertinent to mention that the recommendations
made for appointment by virtue of notice dated 31.07.2021 was
provisional and subject to other conditions as per the
advertisement and rules, such as the verification of original
documents was to be made and appointing authority was also
required to comply with the procedure of Rule 23(1) of the
Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules. Only
after fulfilling these conditions, appointment orders could have
been issued in favour of the selected candidates.
26. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, I am of the
considered view that petitioners have filed these petitions on
imaginary grounds based on conjectures and surmises. The rules
of the game have not been changed after commencement of the
game. Results have been revised on account of perfectly justifiable
and valid reasons. It is not a case of cancellation of result in
violation of legitimate expectations of petitioners and has thereby
led to the violation of fundamental rights under article 14 and 21
of the Constitution of India.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
Skant/Payal
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
