Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Baljeet Pradhan vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 3 March, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:11695-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5133/2025
Baljeet Pradhan S/o Shri Om Prakash Pradhan, Aged About 46
Years, Resident Of Near Main Post Office, Kuchaman City, District
Didwana Kuchaman, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The
Government, Law And Legal Affairs Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Main Building
Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. The Rajasthan High Court, New High Court Building,
Dangiyawas Bypass, Jhalamand, Jodhpur Through Its
Registrar (Examination)
3. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Main Building, Bhagwan Das
Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Bishnoi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Soni for Mr. Pankaj Sharma.
Mr. Ayush Gehlot for
Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Adv. & AAG.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Order
03/03/2025
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"1. the impugned order dated 27/1/2025 (Annexure-7),
may kindly be quashed quo the petitioner and permit him
to appear in main examination which will conducted on 8 th
and 9th March, 2025, and
2. any other appropriate writ order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour
of the petitioner."
[2025:RJ-JD:11695-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-5133/2025]
2. Mr. Deepak Bishnnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner participated in the recruitment for
competitive examination for direct recruitment to the cadre of
District Judge 2024, pursuant to the notification dated
09.07.2024.
2.1 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner applied in
pursuance of the said notification, and was accordingly issued an
Admit-Card. The petitioner participated in the Preliminary
Examination and the result was declared on 09.12.2024, wherein
the petitioner was declared successful. After submitting all
required documents and judgments, the respondents issued a
notice dated 14.01.2025 pointing out certain discrepancies which
were to be rectified before 24.01.2025.
2.2 Learned counsel has pointed out that the defects in the
petitioner's candidature as noted in the aforesaid notification: (1)
nine judgments were from a period beyond 7 years from the date
of submission of application; (2) the certificate of character and
length of actual practice were not in a prescribed format, with
specific practice dates not mentioned.
2.3 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner
submitted a representation stated that he was ineligible due to
lack of required judgments within the seven year period, citing the
COVID-19 pandemic as a mitigating circumstance, and therefore,
a leniency should have been shown by relaxing the seven years
period.
[2025:RJ-JD:11695-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-5133/2025]
2.4 Learned counsel also submits that however, the petitioner
without having any leniency for the period and for the admitted
disqualification of the petitioner, the respondents disqualified him
on the ground that of failing to submit 10 judgments in conformity
with Rule 36 of RJS Rules, 2010.
3. Mr. Rishi Soni, associate to Mr. Pankaj Sharma appearing on
behalf of respondents submits that the requirement of 10
judgments in conformity with Rule 36 of the RJS Rules, 2010 was
the statutory requirement and any kind of relaxation in the Rules
could not have been provided.
3.1 He further submits that if at all the petitioner was aggrieved
by the Rules, he should have challenge the same before
participating in the selection process and not after participating in
the recruitment upto which is almost reaching at the final stage in
the shape of main examination.
3.2 Learned counsel has relied upon the precedent laid down in
the case of Rekha Sharma v. The Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur (Civil Appeal No.5051/2023) decided on 21.08.2024.
4. This Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and perusing
the record of the case, finds that admittedly the petitioner has not
having the requisite conformity to the Rule 36 of the RJS Rules,
2010 and he has unable to submit the 10 judgments in the
requisite period. Admittedly, the only reason why the petitioner is
here is that he seeks relaxation for the COVID period, which
cannot be granted in mid of the selection process, as he has
already happily appeared in the selection process with the open
[2025:RJ-JD:11695-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-5133/2025]
eyes and the Rule and the conditions in the advertisement in
place. The petitioner did not challenge it at the threshold and in
the middle of the selection process cannot be given any kind of
liberty to challenge the conditions in question in the
advertisement. Moreover, admittedly he is not conforming to Rule
36 of the RJS Rules, 2010 for giving the 10 judgments in a
particular time period of 7 years.
5. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present civil writ
petition is dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
16-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
