[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satyaprakash Godara vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission on 19 December, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:54673]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 529/2019
Satyaprakash Godara S/o Magana Ram Godara, Aged About 26
Years, 270-B, Sainik Basti, Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Education
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. Sushil Dave S/o Jagdish Prasad Dave, Posted As Lecturer
(Physics), G.s. Sec. School Bithuja Balotra, District
Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tarun Joshi, thorugh VC, with
Mr. Vikram Singh, for RPSC
Mr. N.K. Mehta, DyGC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Date of conclusion of arguments : 29/10/2025
Date on which order is reserved : 29/10/2025
Full order or operative part : Full order
Date of pronouncement : 19/12/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to
consider and appoint the petitioner on the post of School Lecturer
(Physics) pursuant to Advertisement No.5/15-16 dated
16.10.2015 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
with all consequential benefits from the date on which, according
to the petitioner, a less meritorious candidate came to be
appointed.
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 01:10:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54673] (2 of 7) [CW-529/2019]
2. The factual backdrop of the case is not in serious dispute.
The Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued Advertisement
No.5/15-16 dated 16.10.2015 inviting applications for
appointment to the post of Lecturer, School Education, in various
subjects including Physics. As per the advertisement, a total of
822 posts of School Lecturer (Physics) were notified.
Subsequently, corrigenda dated 13.07.2016 and 26.05.2017 were
issued, and in terms of the corrigendum dated 26.05.2017, 347
posts were earmarked for General Category Male candidates.
3. The petitioner, who possesses the requisite qualifications of
M.Sc. (Physics) and B.Ed., applied online on 25.11.2015 and
appeared in the competitive examination conducted by the
Commission. The initial result was declared on 18.09.2016,
wherein the cut-off marks for the General Male category were
fixed at 189.26. The petitioner secured 183.69 marks and was not
selected. Subsequently, pursuant to various litigations and judicial
directions, including those issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
the selection process underwent revision. A revised result was
declared on 12.06.2017, fixing the cut-off for General Male
candidates at 185.06 marks, which the petitioner again failed to
meet.
4. Thereafter, pursuant to further directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court relating to re-examination of answer keys and
evaluation, a final revised result was declared on 04.07.2018,
wherein the cut-off marks for the General Male category stood at
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 01:10:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54673] (3 of 7) [CW-529/2019]
179.93. In the said revised result, the petitioner was shown to
have secured 177.92 marks and was placed in the reserve list. He
was not recommended for appointment.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is primarily founded on the
assertion that another candidate, namely Shri Sushil Dave,
secured 176.69 marks and yet came to be appointed vide
appointment order dated 23.02.2018, whereas the petitioner,
having secured higher marks than him after revision, was denied
appointment. It is further contended that out of 347 posts
earmarked for General Category Male candidates, only 321 posts
were filled and 26 posts remained vacant, and therefore, denial of
appointment to the petitioner is arbitrary and violative of Articles
14, 16 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
6. The respondent No.1-Commission, in its reply, has stated
that the petitioner never crossed the cut-off marks at any stage of
the selection. It has been specifically pleaded that Shri Sushil
Dave had already been selected and appointed on the basis of an
earlier result and that such appointments were expressly
protected by the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
while ordering revision of results. It has further been pointed out
that even in the finally revised result dated 04.07.2018, the
petitioner failed to secure the prescribed cut-off marks and was
therefore, rightly not recommended for appointment. The
resondent No.2 and 3 have also taken a preliminary objection that
the selection process was conducted entirely by the Commission
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 01:10:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54673] (4 of 7) [CW-529/2019]
and that the Education Department could issue appointment
orders only on the basis of recommendations received from the
Commission.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully examined the record.
8. The central issue that arises for consideration is whether the
petitioner can claim appointment merely on the basis that after
revision of the result, he secured marginally higher marks than a
candidate who was already appointed earlier, despite the
petitioner himself not having crossed the cut-off marks in the
finally revised select list.
9. The answer to this issue is squarely governed by the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rishal & Ors. vs.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission [(2018) 8 SCC 81],
which pertains to the very same recruitment process of School
Lecturer Examination, 2015. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, after an exhaustive consideration of the prolonged
litigation relating to answer keys and evaluation, directed revision
of results on the basis of the report of an Expert Committee.
However, while issuing such directions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
categorically and unequivocally protected appointments already
made. It was expressly held that while revising the result, the
Commission was not required to revise the result of candidates
whose names were already included in the select list and who had
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 01:10:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54673] (5 of 7) [CW-529/2019]
been appointed, and that such appointments were not to be
disturbed.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further directed that only those
candidates who, upon revision of results, secured equal or higher
marks than the cut-off of the last selected candidate could be
offered appointment against the remaining vacancies. Thus, the
revision exercise was consciously designed to balance fairness to
aggrieved candidates with the need to maintain stability and
finality in selections already concluded.
11. Applying the aforesaid binding principles to the facts of the
present case, it is evident that Shri Sushil Dave had already been
selected and appointed on the basis of an earlier result. His
appointment, therefore, stood protected by the express directions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner cannot claim
displacement of such a candidate merely because after revision he
secured slightly higher marks. The doctrine of merit cannot be
applied in isolation, divorced from the cut-off prescribed and the
binding judicial directions governing the selection.
12. Equally important is the fact that even in the finally revised
result dated 04.07.2018, the cut-off marks for the General Male
category were fixed at 179.93, whereas the petitioner secured
only 177.92 marks. Thus, the petitioner never entered the zone of
selection. Placement in the reserve list does not confer any
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 01:10:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54673] (6 of 7) [CW-529/2019]
indefeasible or vested right to appointment, particularly when the
candidate does not satisfy the minimum merit threshold.
13. The contention regarding existence of vacant posts also does
not advance the petitioner's case. It is well settled that mere
availability of vacancies does not create a right to appointment
unless the candidate fulfils the eligibility and merit criteria as
finally determined in accordance with law. In the present case, the
Commission acted strictly within the framework laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and could not have recommended the
petitioner in violation of the prescribed cut-off or by unsettling
protected appointments.
14. The plea of violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution is
also misconceived. A claim to appointment or future service
benefits does not constitute "property" unless a legally enforceable
right has accrued. In the absence of selection and
recommendation, no such right can be said to vest in the
petitioner.
15. Insofar as respondents No.2 and 3 are concerned, this Court
finds merit in their submission that they had no role in the
selection process and could issue appointment orders only on the
basis of recommendations forwarded by the Commission. In the
absence of such recommendation, no relief can be granted against
them.
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 01:10:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54673] (7 of 7) [CW-529/2019]
16. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds
that the action of the respondents is in consonance with the
selection process, the prescribed cut-off marks and the binding
directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rishal & Ors. (supra). No arbitrariness, discrimination or violation
of constitutional rights is made out.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. All pending
applications are disposed of.
18. No order as to costs.
(FARJAND ALI),J
13-Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 20/12/2025 at 01:10:52 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
