Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rameshwar Choudhary vs The State Of Rajasthan on 4 November, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:46970-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 931/2024
1. Rameshwar Choudhary S/o Shri Jeta Ram Choudhary,
Aged About 30 Years, R/o Jato Ka Bas, Dadmi, Tehsil
Bhopalgarh, Jodhpur.
2. Vikram Kuri S/o Shri Ram Niwas Kuri, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Tehsil Udaipruwati, Ward No. 11, Dhani
Kuriyon Ki Pachlangi, Jhunjhunu.
3. Kiran Kumari D/o Shri Surender Singh, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Pipal Ka Bas, Ward No. 01, Sonasar,
Jhunjhunu.
4. Mukesh Kumar Aichara S/o Shri Ramchandra Aichara,
Aged About 30 Years, R/o Via Baya, Tehsil Dantaramgarh,
Banathala, Sikar..
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.
----Respondents
(Matter listed at Jaipur)
(Through V.C.)
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13461/2024
Ramratan Gurjar & Ors.
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate on
VC assisted by Mr. Hanuman Singh
Choudhary with Mr. Foja Ram,
Pradeep Kumar, Pradeep Singh
Mr. Vikas Balia, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Sachin Saraswat
Mr. Raghunanadan Sharma
Mr. Abhinav Srivastava
Ms. Kritika Rajawat
Mr. Ayush Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG
Mr. Tarun Joshi, on VC with Mr.
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:17:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/11/2025 at 09:30:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46970-DB] (2 of 19) [SAW-931/2024]
Vikram Singh
Ms. Manaswita Nakwaaz and
Ms. Tanushka Saxena for Mr. Mahi
Yadav, AAG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Judgment
Reportable
Reserved on 13/08/2025
Pronounced on 04/11/2025
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. At the outset it is clarified that the present D.B. Special
Appeal (Writ) No. 931/2024 has been preferred by the appellants
assailing the order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
13295/2024 (Rameshwar Choudhary & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
& Ors.). It is pertinent to note that another writ petition, S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 13461/2024 (Ramratan Gurjar & Ors. v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.), was filed before the Jaipur Bench of this
Hon'ble Court raising identical questions of law and fact arising out
of the same recruitment process for the post of Veterinary Officer
conducted pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.10.2019. Since
both matters pertain to the same selection process and involve
common issues concerning the prescription of minimum qualifying
marks, they were ordered to be heard together and connected
vide order dated 17.01.2025, for the sake of uniformity and to
avoid conflicting decisions.
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:17:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46970-DB] (3 of 19) [SAW-931/2024]
1.1. Both the above matters were heard together and are being
decided by this common judgment, as the controversy involved in
each arises from the same recruitment process and pertains to the
identical issue. For the sake of convenience and clarity, D.B.
Special Appeal (Writ) No. 931/2024 (Rameshwar
Choudhary & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) has been
treated as the lead case, and the decision herein shall govern the
connected matter S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13461/2024
(Ramratan Gurjar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) as well.
1.2. The present Special Appeal (Writ) has been preferred by the
appellants seeking the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordships may
graciously be pleased to accept and allow this Civil Special
Appeal (Writ) and further be pleased to quash and set aside
the order dated 11.09.2024 Annex.1 passed by the Ld. Single
Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13295/2024 and
petitioners/appellants may be granted appointment on the
vacant seats of Veterinary Officer as per the merit of the
candidates.
Any other appropriate order or direction this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the
appellant."
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are
that the appellants-writ petitioners had approached this Court by
way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13295/2024 laying challenge to
the selection process undertaken by the Rajasthan Public Service
Commission (RPSC) for the post of Veterinary Officer, pursuant to
an advertisement dated 22.10.2019. The grievance of the
appellants-writ petitioners was primarily directed against the
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:17:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46970-DB] (4 of 19) [SAW-931/2024]
fixation of a minimum qualifying threshold of 45% marks in
aggregate for the Physically Handicapped Category, which
according to them, had not been notified in the original
advertisement.
2.1. In the writ petition, it was inter alia prayed that the
respondents be directed to revise the result of the Physically
Handicapped Category by excluding the application of the
minimum 45% cut-off and to grant appointments to the
appellants-writ petitioners as per their merit position. It was
contended that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks was
dehors the advertisement and therefore amounted to changing the
rules of the game after the play had begun. The learned counsel
for the appellants-writ petitioners submitted that the
advertisement did not disclose any such qualifying benchmark and
that the RPSC had no authority under the Rajasthan Animal
Husbandry Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter, "the Rules of 1963")
to impose such a criterion without express mention in the
advertisement itself.
2.2. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, noted
that the RPSC had allocated 40 marks for the screening test, 20
marks for academic record, and 40 marks for interview,
aggregating to 100 marks, and that a Full Commission decision
had prescribed an aggregate 45% as the minimum threshold for
Physically Handicapped Category candidates to qualify for
appointment. The learned Single Judge recorded the submission of
the RPSC that this decision was duly reflected in the guidelines
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:17:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46970-DB] (5 of 19) [SAW-931/2024]
and instructions published on the Commission's website, to which
reference was expressly made at the end of the advertisement,
thereby placing candidates on notice.
2.3. The learned Single Judge observed that Rule 20 of the Rules
of 1963 empowers the Commission to prepare a list of candidates
whom it considers suitable for appointment, and therefore, the
prescription of a 45% qualifying benchmark could not be said to
be arbitrary or ultra vires. It was held that the suitability criterion
so evolved by the Full Commission was within its competence and
designed to promote fairness, transparency, and objectivity in the
selection process.
2.4. The learned Single Judge further relied on the coordinate
Bench decision in Praveen Kumar Meena v. RPSC & Anr. (S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.5619/2021, decided on 02.05.2023), wherein an
identical challenge had been negatived. Relying on the ratio of
that case, as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Anupal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 173, it
was held that a candidate having participated in the selection
process without protest cannot subsequently assail the same upon
being unsuccessful.
2.5. Upon consideration of the above, the learned Single Judge
concluded that the minimum qualifying marks of 45% had neither
been introduced mid-process nor altered after commencement of
recruitment, as the same had already been notified on the official
website in consonance with the decision of the Full Commission.
The omission to reproduce this detail in the body of the
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:17:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46970-DB] (6 of 19) [SAW-931/2024]
advertisement was held not to vitiate the process. Consequently,
the learned Single Judge found no arbitrariness or illegality in the
action of the RPSC and dismissed the writ petition as being devoid
of merit.
2.6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 11.09.2024, the
appellants-writ petitioners have preferred the present D.B. Civil
Special Appeal (Writ), reiterating their grievance that the learned
Single Judge erred in upholding the selection procedure and in
denying relief to the appellants despite the absence of any explicit
mention of qualifying marks in the advertisement.
3. Learned counsels for the appellants-writ petitioners, Mr. R.N.
Mathur, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Hanuman Singh
Choudhary with Mr. Foja Ram, Pradeep Kumar, Pradeep Singh &
Mr. Vikas Balia, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sachin Saraswat,
Mr. Raghunanadan Sharma, Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Ms. Kritika
Rajawat, Mr. Ayush Bishnoi, assailed the impugned order dated
11.09.2024, contending that the learned Single Judge has
dismissed the writ petition on misconceived and unsustainable
premises without properly appreciating the pleadings,
documentary material, and the legal position governing
recruitment to the post of Veterinary Officer. It was urged that the
findings of the learned Single Judge are contrary to the settled
principles of administrative fairness, transparency in public
employment, and the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
3.1 It was submitted that the advertisement dated 22.10.2019
forming the foundation of the selection process did not prescribe
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:17:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46970-DB] (7 of 19) [SAW-931/2024]
any minimum qualifying marks for the Physically Handicapped
(LD/CP) category or for any category of candidates. The allocation
of marks was specifically detailed as 40 for screening test, 20 for
academic record, and 40 for interview, totaling 100 marks.
Therefore, the introduction of such a criterion of minimum marks
of 45%, after the beginning of the selection process, amounted to
changing the rules of the game midstream, rendering the process
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3.2. It was also argued that the learned Single Judge has gravely
erred in holding that the Full Commission's decision regarding
minimum qualifying marks was available on the RPSC website and
could have been accessed by the candidates. It was submitted
that neither the pleadings nor the reply of the respondent-
Commission made any such assertion, nor was any
contemporaneous document produced to substantiate that the
decision of the Full Commission was published on the website prior
to or during the recruitment process. In fact, even as on date, no
such minutes or order of the Full Commission are publicly
available. The finding of the learned Single Judge in this regard, it
was contended, is beyond the pleadings and the record,
amounting to a serious error apparent on the face of the record.
3.3. It was further contended that the reliance placed by the
learned Single Judge on the judgment of this Court in Praveen
Kumar Meena v. RPSC & Anr. (S.B. CWP No.5619/2021, decided
on 02.05.2023) was misplaced, as the facts of that case were
wholly distinguishable. In Praveen Kumar Meena, the petitioner
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:17:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46970-DB] (8 of 19) [SAW-931/2024]
had participated in a process where the minimum qualifying marks
were known in advance and had challenged the weightage to the
interview component after participation. In contrast, in the
present case, the grievance arises from non-disclosure and post
facto introduction of a qualifying marks benchmark. Thus, the
ratio of Praveen Kumar Meena could not have been applied to the
appellants' case.
3.4. Learned counsel also challenged the interpretation placed by
the learned Single Judge upon Rule 20 of the Rules of 1963,
submitting that the said rule merely authorizes the Commission to
prepare a list of candidates considered suitable in the order of
merit, but it does not empower the Commission to impose or
invent an undisclosed qualifying threshold. It was submitted that
"suitability" under Rule 20 is to be judged among the qualified
candidates on the basis of merit, and not to determine eligibility
by prescribing a cut-off which was neither notified nor supported
by statutory backing.
3.5. Learned counsel further argued that the reliance of the
respondents on certain internal minutes of the Full Commission
dated 09.04.1980, 10.04.1980, 04.08.1994, 17.06.2015 and
11.06.2019 is erroneous, as those meetings pertained to
selections conducted solely through interview-based processes,
whereas the present recruitment involved a composite process
with weightage for written test, academics, and interview. It was
also submitted that the minutes dated 11.06.2019 only referred
the matter for further consideration by the Full Commission and
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:17:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46970-DB] (9 of 19) [SAW-931/2024]
did not result in any operative resolution applicable to the
Veterinary Officer recruitment.
3.6. Learned counsel contended that the learned Single Judge
failed to appreciate that FAQs uploaded on the RPSC website--
relied upon by the respondents to justify the 45% threshold--
cannot override or substitute the statutory rules or the terms of
the advertisement. The said FAQs neither bore any date of
publication nor were part of the advertisement, and in fact, the
first page of the document itself carried a disclaimer stating that
the information provided was incomplete and non-binding.
Moreover, the FAQs annexed by the RPSC bore an update date of
31.07.2024, much after the initiation of the recruitment process,
thereby rendering them wholly unreliable.
3.7. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order
overlooks the fact that similar controversies concerning minimum
qualifying marks in other categories (SC/ST, MBC, EWS, and
divorcee categories) are pending before the Jaipur Bench of this
Court in S.B. CWP No.13551/2024 and connected matters, where
interim protection continues to operate. Despite being apprised of
this position and the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the Jaipur
Bench directing the matter to be placed before Hon'ble the Chief
Justice owing to the existence of similar petitions at Jodhpur, the
learned Single Judge proceeded to decide the writ petition finally,
resulting in inconsistent findings between coordinate Benches of
this Court.
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:17:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46970-DB] (10 of 19) [SAW-931/2024]
3.8. It was also contended that the learned Single Judge did not
afford the appellants an opportunity to file a rejoinder to the reply
submitted by the RPSC, which deprived them of the chance to
refute new material relied upon by the respondents. This,
according to learned counsel, amounts to a violation of principles
of natural justice.
3.9. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order
failed to consider the applicability of the Doctrine of Legitimate
Expectation, which mandates that public authorities adhere to the
representations made to candidates and the procedural fairness
inherent in recruitment processes. Reliance was placed on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sivanandan C.T. v. High
Court of Kerala and Others, (2024) 3 SCC 799, wherein it was
held that introduction of a minimum qualifying mark after
completion of the viva voce stage is impermissible. It was urged
that by applying a 45% cut-off retrospectively, the RPSC has
defeated the legitimate expectation of the appellants that the
selection would be governed strictly by the advertisement terms.
3.10. On these submissions, learned counsel prayed that the
impugned order dated 11.09.2024 be quashed and set aside, and
that the respondents be directed to reissue the result of the PH
(LD/CP) category without applying the minimum qualifying marks
criteria, and to consider the appellants for appointment on the
vacant posts of Veterinary Officer as per their merit position.
3.11. Learned Counsel further placed reliance on the following
cases:
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:17:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46970-DB] (11 of 19) [SAW-931/2024]
1. Durgacharan Misra Vs State of Orissa and
Others (1987) 4 SCC 646
2. Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and Ors. Vs State
of Orissa and Others (1995) 6 SCC 1
3. Krishna Rai (Dead) Through legal
representatives and ors. Vs Banaras Hindu Unicersity,
trough resistrar and ors. (2022) 8 SCC 713
4. Tej Prakash Pathak and ors. vs. Rajasthan
High Court and ors. (Civil Appeal no. 2634 of 2013
decided on 07.11.2024)
5. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer through its secetary vs Vishnu Dutt Saini and
Ors. (D.B. Civil Speacial Appeal (Writ) No. 568/2022
decided on 19.05.2023)
4. Per contra, Mr. I.R. Choudhary, Additional Advocate General
& Mr. Tarun Joshi, with Mr. Vikram Singh, Ms. Manaswita Nakwaaz
and Ms. Tanushka Saxena for Mr. Mahi Yadav, Additional Advocate
General, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents
- the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) and the State
of Rajasthan - opposed the appeal and supported the impugned
order passed by the learned Single Judge. It was submitted that
the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are well
reasoned, based on settled legal principles, and call for no
interference in appeal.
4.1. It was submitted that the Commission, in pursuance of its
constitutional and statutory duties, had conducted the recruitment
to the post of Veterinary Officer strictly in accordance with law and
in conformity with the provisions of the Rules of 1963. It was
urged that the decision to prescribe minimum qualifying marks of
45% for PH candidates was taken by the Full Commission of the
RPSC after due deliberation and was applied uniformly across
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:17:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46970-DB] (12 of 19) [SAW-931/2024]
recruitments of similar nature, thereby ensuring fairness,
objectivity, and transparency in selection.
4.2. It was further contended that the advertisement dated
22.10.2019, while setting out the scheme of selection and
allocation of marks, specifically mentioned in its concluding
paragraph that "other relevant information and instructions for the
candidates shall be available on the Commission's website". In
compliance with this clause, all supplementary instructions,
including the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for various
categories, were duly published on the official website of the
Commission. Therefore, it was argued that the appellants were
deemed to be aware of such conditions and cannot now plead
ignorance or allege concealment.
4.3. It was emphasized that Rule 20 of the Rules of 1963 confers
upon the Commission the statutory power to prepare a list of
candidates considered "suitable" for appointment to the post
concerned. For judging such suitability, the Commission is
competent to devise an appropriate mechanism or benchmark,
including prescribing a minimum aggregate score. It was
submitted that the fixation of 45% marks was neither arbitrary
nor introduced mid-process, but rather, it represented a pre-
existing, rational, and policy-based measure to identify genuinely
suitable candidates in a transparent manner.
4.4. It was submitted that the prescription of qualifying marks was
intended to curb discretion and arbitrariness in interview-based
selections. Historically, appointments to the post of Veterinary
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:17:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46970-DB] (13 of 19) [SAW-931/2024]
Officer were made solely through interviews, and therefore, the
Full Commission decided to introduce a balanced scheme
allocating 40 marks to screening test, 20 marks to academic
record, and 40 marks to interview, with a uniform qualifying
benchmark to ensure parity and merit-based selection. It was
argued that this measure enhances transparency and reduces
subjectivity, and hence, cannot be termed illegal or unreasonable.
4.5. The judgment of the Coordinate Bench in Praveen Kumar
Meena v. RPSC & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5619/2021,
decided on 02.05.2023) was also relied upon, wherein the Court
had upheld the prescription of minimum qualifying marks (50%
for General/OBC and 45% for SC/ST/PH categories) as a valid
exercise of administrative power by the RPSC. The said judgment,
according to the respondents, squarely covers the controversy in
question and has attained finality.
4.6. It was further urged that the appellants cannot be permitted
to challenge the recruitment process after having voluntarily
participated in it and having failed to secure the qualifying marks.
Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Anupal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC
173, wherein it was held that a candidate who takes part in the
selection process without protest cannot subsequently turn around
to question its validity after being unsuccessful.
4.7. On the issue of parity with the matters pending before this
Hon'ble Court at the Jaipur Bench, it was submitted that pendency
of similar petitions does not automatically preclude adjudication of
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:17:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46970-DB] (14 of 19) [SAW-931/2024]
the present case, especially when no stay or restraint order
operates on the selection in question. It was contended that the
learned Single Judge was fully justified in independently deciding
the writ petition on merits, as the challenge raised by the
appellants was devoid of substance.
4.8. Learned counsel for the State also supported the stand of the
RPSC and submitted that the doctrine of legitimate expectation
has no application in the present case, as no specific assurance or
representation was made to the appellants that no qualifying
marks would be prescribed. On the contrary, the advertisement
expressly required the candidates to consult the Commission's
website for detailed instructions, and hence, the appellants were
put to notice.
4.9. It was further contended that non-mention of the minimum
marks in the printed advertisement does not vitiate the process,
so long as the decision prescribing such marks existed
contemporaneously and was available in the public domain. The
learned Single Judge rightly held that the rules of selection were
not changed mid-way, and that all candidates had a level playing
field under a uniform standard.
4.10. Learned counsel lastly submitted that interference at this
stage would not only unsettle a long-concluded selection process
but also prejudice third-party rights of candidates already
appointed on the basis of the impugned result. The appellants,
having failed to establish any illegality, procedural irregularity, or
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:17:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46970-DB] (15 of 19) [SAW-931/2024]
mala fide in the action of the RPSC, are not entitled to any relief in
equity or law.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the material available on record. The judgments cited at the Bar,
including Praveen Kumar Meena v. RPSC & Anr., decided on
02.05.2023, Anupal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC
173, and Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, (2024) 3 SCC
799, have been duly considered.
6. This Court observes that the primary issue requiring
adjudication in the present appeal is whether the prescription of
minimum qualifying marks of 45% by the Rajasthan Public Service
Commission for candidates in the Physically Handicapped (LD/CP)
category was legally sustainable and whether the same could be
said to have been introduced dehors the advertisement dated
22.10.2019, thereby vitiating the selection process.
7. This Court finds that the advertisement dated 22.10.2019
clearly delineated the scheme of selection, comprising 40 marks
for the screening test, 20 marks for the academic record, and 40
marks for the interview, and further contained a specific note
directing candidates to refer to the RPSC's official website for
"other relevant information and instructions." The material placed
on record, including the documents annexed by the respondents,
indicates that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks was
part of the Full Commission's decision that existed
contemporaneously and was consistently applied across
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:17:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46970-DB] (16 of 19) [SAW-931/2024]
recruitments. The said stipulation was available in the public
domain and accessible to all candidates.
8. This Court further observes that Rule 20 of Rules of 1963
authorizes the Commission to prepare a list of candidates "whom
they consider suitable for appointment to the post concerned." The
phrase "consider suitable" necessarily implies an evaluative
discretion, which permits the Commission to determine objective
parameters to judge suitability, including the fixation of a
minimum benchmark to ensure merit-based and uniform
selection. The exercise of such discretion by the RPSC, being
rooted in statutory power, cannot be faulted in the absence of
demonstrable arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory
provisions.
9. This Court also finds that the prescription of a qualifying
benchmark serves a legitimate administrative purpose. The
rationale behind fixing 45% aggregate marks for the Physically
Handicapped Category was to balance the components of
screening, academics, and interview, and to minimize subjectivity
in assessment. The decision of the Full Commission, therefore,
represents a policy determination aimed at enhancing
transparency and fairness. In such matters, the scope of judicial
interference is limited unless the action is manifestly arbitrary or
ultra vires.
10. This Court observes that the contention of the appellants
regarding non-disclosure of qualifying marks in the advertisement
cannot be sustained in light of the explicit note contained therein
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:17:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46970-DB] (17 of 19) [SAW-931/2024]
requiring candidates to consult the Commission's website. The
recruitment advertisement is not to be read in isolation but as an
integrated notification that includes supplementary instructions
hosted online. Once the advertisement itself directed candidates to
access the website for details, the appellants cannot claim
ignorance of the information that was publicly available.
11. This Court further finds that the reliance placed by the learned
Single Judge on the judgment in Praveen Kumar Meena v. RPSC &
Anr. (supra) was justified. In that case, a Coordinate Bench of this
Court upheld the fixation of 50% qualifying marks for General and
OBC candidates and 45% for SC/ST/PH candidates as a valid
exercise of administrative power. The principle enunciated therein
that prescription of minimum marks to assess suitability does not
amount to alteration of the rules of the game applies mutatis
mutandis to the present case.
12. The argument advanced by the appellants that the Full
Commission's decision was not placed on record or publicly
available is not persuasive. The respondents have relied on
longstanding resolutions of the Commission dating back to 1980,
1994, 2015, and 2019, which form the policy framework for
recruitment examinations. The decision to prescribe minimum
qualifying marks of 45% in the PH category is consistent with this
established pattern and cannot be said to have been newly
introduced or applied selectively to the present recruitment.
13. This Court also notes that the appellants participated in the
selection process without any demur or protest and challenged the
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:17:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46970-DB] (18 of 19) [SAW-931/2024]
same only after being declared unsuccessful. It is well settled that
a candidate who consciously participates in a selection process is
estopped from subsequently questioning its validity merely
because the outcome is adverse. The principle has been reiterated
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anupal Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (supra), which squarely applies to the present case.
14. As regards the contention that the learned Single Judge erred
in proceeding with the matter despite pendency of similar petitions
at the Jaipur Bench, this Court finds no procedural irregularity. The
existence of parallel proceedings does not bar adjudication by a
coordinate Bench, particularly when no restraint or stay order has
been issued. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in
rendering a final decision on the basis of the pleadings and
material before him.
15. This Court also finds that the doctrine of legitimate
expectation, as invoked by the appellants, is misplaced. The
doctrine can operate only when a public authority, by an express
representation or past consistent practice, creates a reasonable
expectation in favor of an individual. In the present case, the
advertisement contained a clear stipulation directing candidates to
refer to the website for complete details. Therefore, there was no
promise or assurance that no qualifying marks would be
prescribed. In the absence of such representation, the plea of
legitimate expectation cannot be sustained.
16. This Court further observes that no evidence has been placed
on record to demonstrate that the process adopted by the RPSC
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:17:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46970-DB] (19 of 19) [SAW-931/2024]
was tainted by arbitrariness, mala fides, or discrimination. All
candidates were assessed under a uniform benchmark of 45%
marks, and no category or candidate was treated disparately. The
process was thus transparent, consistent, and fair.
17. This Court finds no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the
learned Single Judge that non-mention of qualifying marks in the
body of the advertisement would not vitiate the process,
particularly when the criterion existed prior to the commencement
of recruitment and was applicable uniformly to all candidates. The
impugned order reflects a sound appreciation of law and facts,
supported by binding precedents.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned order dated 11.09.2024,
passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.13295/2024, does not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or
error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in
appellate jurisdiction.
19. Consequently, the present D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.
931/2024 is dismissed being devoid of merit. The connected S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 13461/2024 (Ramratan Gurjar & Ors. v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.), involving the same controversy and
arising out of the same recruitment process, shall stand disposed
of in terms of this common judgment.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
25-SKant/-
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:17:03 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
