Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amba Lal Kumawat vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:12071) on 4 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:12071]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4850/2019
1. Raj Kumar Meghwal S/o Shri Jasaram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Sadari, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali.
2. Manohar Lal S/o Shri Raghunath Jat,, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Village- Post Hod, Via Khandela, District Sikar.
3. Krishna Kumari D/o Shri Jaihind Undriwal,, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Gopal Vihar, Near Loti School, Housing Board Colony,
Jhalawar.
4. Anita Bai D/o Shri Punya Ram Meena,, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Village Thekrin, Post Ballupura, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalor.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhalawar.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1501/2019
1. Amba Lal Kumawat S/o Shri Remat Lal Kumawat, Aged About 33
Years, Village Post Thala, District Bhilwara.
2. Suman Patel D/o Shri Jairam Patel W/o Shri Puran Patel, Aged
About 32 Years, Jodhava Bera, Bilara, District Jodhpur.
3. Daya Ram S/o Shri Dungar Ram, Aged About 43 Years, Village
28 Chak, Post Bhagwansar, Tehsil Suratgarh, District
Sriganganagar.
4. Rajkumar Jajoriya S/o Shri Madan Lal Jajoriya, Aged About 32
Years, Keshopura, Ward No. 12, Jaipur.
5. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Manbhar Dayal Jangir, Aged About 44
Years, Village - Post Pacheri Badi, Tehsil Buhana, District
Jhunjhunu.
6. Jile Singh Nehra S/o Shri Maru Ram, Aged About 36 Years,
Village Post Sanwlod, Tehisl Buhana, District Jhunjhunu.
7. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 30 Years, Vpo
Sirsla, Tehsil Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu.
8. Sombeer S/o Shri Balbir Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Village
Amarpura Kalla, Tehsil Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu.
9. Mohan Lal Sharma S/o Shri Ram Kumar Sharma, Aged About 36
Years, Village Sheosinghpura, Post Dulania, Via Pilani, Tehsil
Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu.
10. Priyanka Kumari D/o Shri Deo Karan Singh Jhajharia, Aged
About 27 Years, D/4-Iii-A, Khetri Nagar, Tehsil Khetri, District
Jhunjhunu.
11. Sukh Dev S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 32 Years, Regar Basti,
Ward No. 16, Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu.
12. Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 34 Years,
Bahadurwas, District Jhunjhunu.
13. Dharmendra Shah S/o Shri Pravin Chandra Shah, Aged About 41
(Downloaded on 21/03/2025 at 11:37:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12071] (2 of 7) [CW-4850/2019]
Years, Partapur, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara.
14. Firoj Hussain Mansoory S/o Shri Mustak Ahmed Mansoory, Aged
About 39 Years, Boheda, Tehsil Barisadri, District Chittorgarh.
15. Prahlad Singh S/o Shri Ram Chand, Aged About 35 Years,
Panhori, Tehsil Deeg, Naglalakhmi, District Bharatpur.
16. Ram Niwas S/o Shri Isar Ram, Aged About 31 Years, Badopal,
Tehsil Pilibanga, Chak Thakruwala, District Hanumangarh.
17. Sawai Singh Bhati S/o Shri Dalpat Singh Bhati, Aged About 38
Years, Chamu, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.
18. Om Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Baboo Lal Sharma, Aged About 36
Years, Galod, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk.
19. Vishan Singh Raj Purohit S/o Shri Raju Singh Raj Purohit, Aged
About 31 Years, Kanana, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.
20. Mahaveer Kumar Jain S/o Shri Rajmal Jain, Aged About 42
Years, Village Post Sundani, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara.
21. Bhikha Ram Kumawat S/o Shri Bhanwaru Ram Kumawat, Aged
About 39 Years, Vpo Lambiya, Tehsil Jaitaran, Anandpur Kalu,
District Pali.
22. Santlal S/o Shri Manphool Singh, Aged About 42 Years, Vpo
Jhansal, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.
23. Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Panna Lal, Aged About 31 Years, Ward
No. 7, Kesav Colony, 8 Psd-B, District Ganganagar.
24. Om Prakash S/o Shri Manohar Ram, Aged About 39 Years, Vpo
Nokhra Godaran, Via Aau, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur.
25. Dalpat Ram S/o Shri Meva Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Bisu
Kalan, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer.
26. Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri Kesha Ram, Aged About 30 Years,
Village Lawari, Post Siyara, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur.
27. Bhanwar Lal Godara S/o Shri Gopi Ram Godara, Aged About 35
Years, Shekhsar, Tehsil Loonkaransar, District Barmer.
28. Raju Ram S/o Shri Likhma Ram, Aged About 34 Years, Ward No.
4, Gram Molaniyan, Dheeran Station, Tehsil Loonkaransar,
District Bikaner.
29. Sita Ram Rajora S/o Shri Balbeer Rajora, Aged About 31 Years,
Village Berwa Mohalla, Saloli, Alwar.
30. Kuldeep Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Bhabut Singh Chouhan, Aged
About 34 Years, Dakghar Gali Bera, District Pali.
31. Dilip Kumar S/o Shri Bhala Ram, Aged About 29 Years, Vpo
Bhata, Tehsil Sindhari, District Barmer.
32. Mohan Lal Khatik S/o Shri Ram Chandra, Aged About 40 Years,
Main Road, Tana, Tehsil Bhool Sagar, District Chittorgarh.
33. Hanuman Ram S/o Shri Ladu Ram, Aged About 31 Years,
Devaniya, District Jodhpur.
34. Chandar Kumhar S/o Shri Hajari Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Vpo
Gajner, Tehsil Kolayat, District Barmer.
35. Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Shyam Lal Sharma, Aged About
32 Years, Village Nindar, Ward No. 1, Via Harmara, District
Jaipur.
36. Shashikant Singhal S/o Shri Tejpal Singhal, Aged About 35
Years, B-116, L.s. Nagar, Nayakhera, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.
37. Ramswaroop Khowal S/o Shri Bhairoon Lal Khowal, Aged About
47 Years, P. No. 5, Ganesh Vihar Vistar, Nadi Ka Phatak,
(Downloaded on 21/03/2025 at 11:37:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12071] (3 of 7) [CW-4850/2019]
Murlipura, Jaipur.
38. Ashok Kumar Chandel S/o Shri Banshi Lal, Aged About 33 Years,
Bagor, Tehsil Mandal, District Bhilwara.
39. Suresh Kumar Saini S/o Shri Motilal Saini, Aged About 37 Years,
Mubarak Nagar, Post Somp, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk.
40. Priyanka D/o Shri Ram Pratap, Aged About 26 Years, Village
Bairasar Bara, Post Jaitpura, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Rajsamand.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalore.
6. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer.
7. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh.
8. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.
9. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali.
10. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu.
11. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bundi.
12. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Baran.
13. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhalawar.
14. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur.
15. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner.
16. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Firoda.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Soni for Mr. B.L. Bhati,
AAG & Mr. Pawan Bharti for Mr. I.R.
Choudhary, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
04/03/2025
1. Petitioners herein are before this Court seeking a direction to
the respondents to revise the merit list for the post of Teacher
Gr.III pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.02.2012 (Annex.1).
Thereafter, if they are found to be in merit and otherwise eligible,
they be appointed on the said post.
[2025:RJ-JD:12071] (4 of 7) [CW-4850/2019]
2. Vide this common order, these petitions are decided together
as not only the facts involved are similar, but even the issue
therein is common. For the sake of brevity, facts are taken from
SBCWP No.4850/2019.
3. Briefly speaking relevant facts of the case are that
respondents issued an advertisement on 24.02.2012 for Teacher
Grade-III (Primary and Upper Primary School) positions, with
10,609 posts for Level-I and 28,935 posts for Level-II, totaling
39,544 posts. The petitioners, being eligible, applied for both
levels. The written examination was conducted on 02.06.2012,
and the results were declared on 26.06.2012, with appointments
made to 9,529 Level-I and 27,788 Level-II posts.
3.1. In August 2013, the results were revised following court
judgments regarding answer keys and the RTET revision. This
revision removed 2,806 candidates who fell below the cutoff, but
their services continued per other court rulings. On 18.11.2014,
another judgment in the case of Ramdhan Kumawat directed the
respondents to revise results based on model answer keys and
issue a fresh select list.
3.2. In November 2016, the results were again revised, removing
6,235 previously selected candidates. After the revision, 3,008
ousted candidates were absorbed into vacant posts per the
advertisement, while 3,227 were absorbed on newly available
seats. However, the Zila Parishads were required to absorb all
ousted candidates into fresh vacant posts. Instead, 3,008 posts
were filled from the advertised posts, which should have been
filled by candidates like the petitioners, who were in merit. Hence,
this writ petition.
[2025:RJ-JD:12071] (5 of 7) [CW-4850/2019]
4. Relevant stand taken by the respondents in their reply is that
the Zila Parishad, Bhilwara, advertised 189 posts for Hindi and 586
posts for Social Science in 2012. Petitioners No.2 and No.4 applied
under the OBC and ST categories, respectively. Petitioner No.2
scored 157.12 marks and Petitioner No.4 scored 111.17 marks
after adding 20% RTET scores. However, the cut-off for their
categories was 163.35 and 119.19, so they were not considered
for appointment. Following a court order, the results were revised,
and the petitioners' new cumulative scores were 169.29 and
128.07, but the revised cut-off was 169.89 and 128.49, meaning
they still did not qualify.
4.1. The respondents state that the posts for OBC and ST
categories have been filled and no vacancies remain. As the
petitioners' scores fall below the revised cut-off, they are not in
the merit list and therefore could not be appointed. The
respondents request the High Court to dismiss the writ petition
based on this objection.
5. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
and have perused the case record.
6. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it
is evident that the petitioners seek to challenge the outcome of
this selection process, asserting that they should have been
appointed to the post being more meritorious than others in the
same category as they applied under. It is noteworthy that no
interim protection of any kind was granted to the petitioners
during the pendency of the writ proceedings. At this belated stage,
it is not feasible to assess the merits of the petitioners'
performance, especially since the records related to the selection
[2025:RJ-JD:12071] (6 of 7) [CW-4850/2019]
process for unsuccessful candidates are no longer available. As per
well-established legal principles, an unsuccessful candidate is not
entitled to challenge the entire selection process once it has
reached its final conclusion, solely on the grounds of failing to
succeed in the competition. The petitioners, therefore, cannot
seek to annul or alter the selection process simply because they
was not selected.
7. In the absence of selection records, it is not possible to
substantiate the petitioners' claim of being more meritorious than
the selected candidates, particularly those who have already been
serving in the position for over 13 years. Furthermore, none of the
selected candidates have been made a party to these proceedings,
and this has been noted as a significant omission. Moreover, as
there are currently no vacant posts available, it would not be
appropriate to displace the existing candidates, especially after
such a long period of service.
8. Additionally, I am inclined to accept the respondents' stand,
as outlined in their reply, as no additional material has been
placed on record by the petitioners in support of their claim that
either the aforesaid factual stand taken by the respondents is
incorrect and/or to support their claim that they are more
meritorious than the selected candidates. Therefore, I find no
ground to interfere.
9. Moreover, law helps the vigilant and not those who sleep
over their right. In matters of litigation, at certain stage, quietus
has to be given to the rival claims of the parties. It transpires that
earlier they chose to remain silent and it is only after certain other
candidates got relief from this Court that they woke up to assert
[2025:RJ-JD:12071] (7 of 7) [CW-4850/2019]
their rights. As revised list was issued in February, 2018, and the
petitioners have belatedly filed the writ petition in the year 2019.
No justification is coming forth for the delay caused by them in
approaching this Court. There is no justifiable ground for the
petitioners to sit as a fence sitters and having thus remained non-
vigilant. They are not entitled to any indulgence at this belated
stage.
10. Trite law it is that if latches result in crystallization of legal
rights of others, the same cannot be taken away merely because
certain injustice and heartburn is caused to those, who had they
come on time, would have been entitled to relief from this Court.
11. As already observed, the petitioners are themselves
responsible for delay and latches which have resulted in the
crystallization of rights in favour of others.
12. The writ petition thus lacks merit as the petitioner's claim is
not supported by any material or legal grounds, and no relief can
be granted at this stage due to the unavailability of essential
records by sheer passage of considerable time since the final
selection.
13. Dismissed.
14. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
99-100- Jitender-Sumit/-
Whether Fit for Reporting:- Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
