Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Neeru Saini vs State And Ors on 25 February, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:11553]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6988/2015
Asad Sayeed son of Shri Sayeed Ahmad, aged about 38 years,
resident of H.No. 51/9, c/o Santokh Singh Dua, Near Kukli
General Store, Chataiganj, Ajmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Ayurved
and Indian Medicine, Jaipur.
2. Dr. Sarvpalli Radhakirshnan Rajasthan Ayurved University,
Jodhpur through its Registrar.
----Respondents
Connected with
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.6518/2015, 6611/2015, 7598/2015 &
7681/2015
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Sanjay, Mr. M.K. Trivedi, Mr.
Shyam S. Khatri, Mr. Tribhuvan Singh.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with Ms.
Rakhi Choudhary, Dy.G.C.
Dr. Praveen Khandelwal, AAG with Ms.
Yashvi Khandelwal.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
25/02/2025
1. Vide this common order, the aforesaid bunch of petitions is
being disposed of together as not only the facts involved are
similar, but even the issue therein is common.
2. Under challenge herein are the provisional select lists /
appointment orders issued pursuant to two separate sets of
advertisements published by the Ayurved & Indian Medicine
Department. The first set of advertisements, dated 01.06.2013,
invited applications for 1545, 308, and 242 posts of Ayurvedic,
Yunani, and Homeopathic Medical Officers, respectively, under the
Rajasthan Ayurved, Unani, Homeopathic & Natural Medicine
Services Rules, 1973 and the Second Amendment Rules of 2013.
[2025:RJ-JD:11553] (2 of 4) [CW-6988/2015]
A subsequent set of advertisements, dated 01.07.2013, was
issued for an additional 400, 50, and 50 posts of Ayurvedic,
Yunani, and Homeopathic Medical Officers, respectively. The
petitioners seek quashing / merger of these advertisements.
However, the individual facts of the petitioners are not of
substantial relevance and are, therefore, not being gone into.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
and perused the case file.
4. Learned counsels for the petitioners argue that the
respondents made a significant mistake by issuing two separate
advertisements for the same positions at the same time,
especially since they reserved the right to increase or decrease
the number of vacancies. They contend that there was no need for
a separate advertisement and that the respondents could have
simply increased the number of posts through a corrigendum. As a
result, the petitioners request the issuance of a mandamus
directing the respondents to merge the selection processes of both
advertisements and prepare a unified merit list.
4.1 They contend that if the vacancies from both advertisements
are merged and a consolidated select list is prepared, they would
be included in the merit list. Additionally, they rely on the Division
Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Kamlesh Kumar Sharma
v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (DBCWP No. 20380/2013, decided on
04.04.2016) and request that the petitioners in this case be
granted the same benefit.
5. Having heard the arguments, I am of the view that it is
completely beyond the scope of this Court to exercise the
[2025:RJ-JD:11553] (3 of 4) [CW-6988/2015]
extraordinary writ jurisdiction to issue a direction in the nature of
mandamus (as has been sought herein) commanding the
respondents to combine the selection process of two
advertisements carried out at different times and subsequently,
prepare a common merit-list and thereafter, to ascertain if the
petitioners are in the reckoning or not, simply for the reason that
not only the persons, who competed with each other vide different
set of advertisements as well as the written examination carried
out qua the process was also different and therefore, there cannot
be any amalgamation of the two sets of selection processes and
thus, common merit-list cannot be prepared.
6. Equals have to be compared with the equals and not the
unequals. No doubt, on an earlier occasion, after hearing learned
counsel for the petitioners, I was of the preliminary view that case
of the petitioners, on merit, seems to be covered by judgment
rendered in Kamlesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors. : DBCWP No.20380/2013, decided on 04.04.2016, but
having given my deeper thought to the same, coupled with the
fact that the selection process pertains to an advertisement of
2013 stood culminated in 2015 and thereafter, 10 years have gone
past, by sheer passage of time, the nature of relief sought by the
petitioners cannot be granted to them.
7. Moreover, relief, if any, granted in favour of the counterparts
of the petitioners in Kamlesh Sharma was not in rem but in
personam.
8. Even otherwise, I am of the opinion that vagaries of litigation
are such that by sheer pendency of lis over the period of time,
[2025:RJ-JD:11553] (4 of 4) [CW-6988/2015]
even if in certain cases, interference is warranted, the same is
rendered meaningless owing to the latches which results in
crystallization of the rights not only of the State, but also of those
who have already been selected and the posts have been filled
and to consider the claim of the petitioners by either displacing
those candidates who have been selected or to consider them for
future vacancies, would result in hostile discrimination qua those
candidates who are not before this Court and had subsequently
competed by virtue of the advertisements which were issued by
the department for the posts remaining vacant at the relevant
time.
9. Moreover, trite it may sound, but to accept that the waiting
list pursuant to the selection process should be kept open in
perpetuity merely because of the pendency of the proceedings
before this Court is fraught with danger as it would result in
keeping the subsequent selection processes at abeyance and
depriving those candidates who become eligible during the
interregnum for being considered for selection process.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
352 to 356-DhananjayS/Rmathur/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
