Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dharmendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:22611) on 9 May, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:22611]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5760/2025

1.       Dharmendra Singh S/o Sohan Singh, Aged About 38
         Years, Village Kakediya Post Ajitgarh, Tehsil Bhim, District
         Rajsamand (Raj.)
2.       Kamlesh Singh S/o Sohan Singh, Aged About 40 Years,
         Village Kakediya Post Ajitgarh, Tehsil Bhim, District
         Rajsamand (Raj.)
                                                                        ----Petitioners
                                         Versus
1.       State       Of    Rajasthan,          Through          Principal   Secretary,
         Education        Department            (Secondary)           Government    Of
         Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       The Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan Bikaner
         (Raj.).
                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Sushil Bishnoi.
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. D.S. Pidiyar & Mr. Lata Ladrecha
                                     for Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG.



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

09/05/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following

prayers:

a) The action of the recruitment agency/respondent department to treat to petitioners as ineligible on the count that the petitioners are not having the degree of graduation in English optional subject may kindly be declared illegal.

b) The petitioners may kindly be declared eligible for the post of Assistant Teacher-Level-2 (English) at the strength of their Graduation with English as compulsory Subject studied in all three years of graduation study course.

[2025:RJ-JD:22611] (2 of 7) [CW-5760/2025]

c) The respondents may kindly be restrained to reject the candidature of petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are not having the qualification of graduation with English subject as optional.

d) The respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to petitioners as Assistant Teacher- Level-2 (English) pursuant of advertisement dated 15.01.2023 (Annex-I) with all consequential benefits.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners possessed a

degree of graduation with 'English' as a compulsory subject and

had studied the said subject in all three years of their graduation.

Hence, in terms of the ratio laid down in Naveen Swami & Ors.

vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.12186/2023 (decided on 16.10.2023), they should also be

held eligible for appointment to the post of 'Assistant Teacher

Level-2 (English)' and the rejection of their candidature deserves

to be declared to be bad.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a clear ratio

with regard to above issue was laid down in the case of RPSC v.

Deepak Bariyal; D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.528/2018

(decided on 07.03.2018) wherein the Division Bench of this Court

specifically held that the action of the respondent in insisting for

English as optional subject at the graduation level and holding the

candidates like the petitioners, who have studied English as

compulsory subject at the graduation level to be ineligible, cannot

be sustained.

4. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Naveen

Swami (supra), while relying upon Division Bench judgment in

the case of Deepak Bariya (supra) allowed the writ petition while

directing to consider the candidature of the petitioners therein

treating them to be eligible for the post of Assistant Teacher (Level

[2025:RJ-JD:22611] (3 of 7) [CW-5760/2025]

II) English on the strength of their graduation with English as

compulsory subject.

5. Counsel submits that Naveen Swami (supra) was a matter

pertaining to the same recruitment in question and hence, the

petitioners also being on a similar footing deserve to be granted

the same relief. He submits that even otherwise more than 600

posts qua the recruitment in question are lying vacant as of date

and no fresh recruitment process has been initiated by the

respondent-Department therefore also the petitioners deserve to

be granted the relief.

6. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-Department raised an

objection regarding the grant of relief at a highly belated stage.

Counsel submits that the final selection list for the recruitment in

question was issued on 18.07.2023 (Annexure-10) and the cause,

if any, arose to the petitioner on the said date as his name was

not reflected in the said selection list. However, no action

whatsoever was taken by the petitioners at that point of time and

it is only after the judgment in Naveen Swami (supra) having

attained finality that the present writ petition has been filed.

7. Counsel further submits that the recruitment in question is

complete by all means and granting a relief to the petitioners at

this stage would result into the opening of a pandora's box.

8. Responding to the argument regarding the existing vacant

posts, counsel submits that the seats, even if vacant, are liable to

be notified in the next recruitment process to be initiated by the

respondent-Department. The seats as advertised vide the

advertisement in question, even if not filled up, cannot grant any

vested right to the petitioners to be appointed.

[2025:RJ-JD:22611] (4 of 7) [CW-5760/2025]

9. Heard the counsels and perused the record.

10. So far as the ratio laid down in the cases of Deepak Bariya

(supra) and Naveen Swami (supra) is concerned, there is no

quarrel over the same.

11. The eligibility of a candidate who is a graduate and has read

English as a compulsory subject for all the three years of

graduation, was eligible to be considered. But then, it is crystal

clear that the petitioner who did not find place in the final

selection list issued on 18.07.2023 remained contended with the

same and did not raise any grievance qua the same till the year

2025. Even the judgment in Naveen Swami (supra) was passed

on 16.10.2023, but the petitioner who now relies upon the said

judgment did not approach this Court even after the passing of

the said judgment. It is only after the appeal of the department

against the Single Bench judgment in Naveen Swami (supra)

having been dismissed by the Division Bench that the petitioner

approached this Court.

12. This Court is of the clear opinion that no relief can be

granted to the petitioners at this stage on the sole count of them

having approached this Court after a huge delay.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Rup Diamonds

& Ors. vs Union of India & Ors., (1989) 2 SCC 356 while

rejecting the petition on the ground of delay and laches held as

under:

"Petitioners are re-agitating claims which they had not pursued for several years. Petitioners were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and chose to sit on the fence till somebody else's case came to be decided."

[2025:RJ-JD:22611] (5 of 7) [CW-5760/2025]

14. Keeping into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind

Kumar Srivastava; (2015) 1 SCC 347, this Court does not find

any ground to entertain the present petition only on the ground

that a relief had been granted to some similarly situated person in

the year 2023. In Arvind Kumar Srivastava's case (supra) while

observing that fence-sitters cannot be given benefit on the basis

of parity, it was held as under:

"23. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the Appellants as well as the Respondents, can be summed up as under:

(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.

(2) However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and

[2025:RJ-JD:22611] (6 of 7) [CW-5760/2025]

acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-

sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim."

15. Further, this Court also takes into consideration the fact that

there would be hundreds of candidates who would be on a similar

footing as of Naveen Swami (supra) or the present petitioners.

As is evident, the recruitment process in question stood completed

in the year 2023. Granting any relief to the petitioners at this

stage would definitely mean opening of a Pandora's box.

16. Further, there is no provision of law which specifies that if all

the seats as advertised in a particular recruitment process are not

filled up or a fresh recruitment process is not initiated by the

State-Department qua the unfilled posts, the recruitment process

shall be deemed to be not complete and shall continue till the date