Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jaswant Singh Jhala vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:44411) on 8 October, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:44411]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12146/2025

Jaswant Singh Jhala S/o Shri Vijay Singh Jhala, Aged About 23
Years,    Resident        Of    Village      Badundiya,          Post   Mada,   Tehsil
Gogunda, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.       State       Of    Rajasthan,          Through          Principal   Secretary,
         Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
         Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       District Education Officer, (Head Quarters), Udaipur.
3.       The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur.
                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Lokesh Mathur
                                     Mr. Hemant Singh Solanki
                                     Mr. Prakash Kumar
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. Deepak Chandak, AAAG
                                     Mr. Lavish Bhati for
                                     Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG
                                     Ms. Nandipna Gehlot for
                                     Mr. Manish Patel



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

08/10/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that

the respondents be directed to provide appointment to the

petitioner on the post of 'Upper Primary School Teacher (General

Education) (Level-2) in subject English.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he filled up his form qua

both the TSP and the non TSP area in EWS category. The

petitioner found place in the select list (qua TSP area) but was not

afforded appointment on the premise that he had already availed

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:22:20 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44411] (2 of 6) [CW-12146/2025]

relaxation in the REET Examination and hence, once having

availed the relaxation, he would now not be entitled to be

migrated from the category of EWS to General although he had

secured more marks than the last selected general category

candidate.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Division Bench of this

Court in Deepika Kunwar Chundawat Vs. State of Rajasthan

& Ors.; D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.31/2024 and other

connected matters (decided on 26.05.2025) has, in identical facts

and qua the same recruitment process in question, already held

that the rule of migration will be applicable even if a candidate has

passed TET/eligibility qualification by relaxed criteria. Therein, the

Court specifically held that such candidates shall be entitled to the

benefit of rule of migration.

4. Counsel submits that in view of the ratio laid down in

Deepika Kunwar Chundawat (supra), the present petitioner too

deserves to be considered qua the unreserved/general category.

5. In addition, Counsel submits that there being no seats

reserved for EWS category qua a TSP area, the petitioner was

even otherwise entitled to be considered qua the General

category, he having secured more marks than the last selected

general category candidate.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents while relying

upon the recent Apex Court judgment in Union of India & Ors.

Vs. Sajib Roy; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1943 tried to distinguish

the ratio laid down in Deepika Kunwar Chundawat (supra).

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:22:20 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44411] (3 of 6) [CW-12146/2025]

7. Counsel further raised the ground of delay and latches. He

submits that the petitioner chose to prefer the petition in the year

2025 only after the judgment in Deepika Kunwar Chundawat

(supra) having been pronounced. He submits that a fence-sitter

cannot be held entitled for any relief at a belated stage.

In support of his argument, counsel relied upon the

judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jaishree

Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.; S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.10059/2021 (decided on 26.08.2021).

8. Counsel further submits that if at this stage, the petitioner is

granted appointment, definitely, some other person from General

category who has already been afforded appointment shall be

ousted and without impleading such party who is likely to be

affected, the present petition cannot be maintained.

9. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record.

10. So far the judgment in Sajib Roy (supra) is concerned,

evidently, that is a judgment subsequent to the decision of

Division Bench of this Court in Deepika Kunwar Chundawat

(supra). Further, if the counsel wishes to distinguish the ratio of

Deepika Kunwar Chundawat (supra) in light of Sajib Roy

(supra), his remedy definitely would be before the learned Division

Bench.

11. So far as the ratio laid down in Deepika Kunwar

Chundawat (supra) is concerned, counsel for the respondents is

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:22:20 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44411] (4 of 6) [CW-12146/2025]

not in a position to refute the fact that the issue in question would

definitely be covered by the said ratio.

12. In Deepika Kunwar Chundawat (supra), the Court

directed as under:

"46. As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the batch of writ petitions assailed in these appeals cannot be sustained and is set aside. The writ petitions are consequently allowed and all the writ petitioners are held entitled to benefit of rule of migration. That means, if they have obtained marks more than the general category candidates, in the recruitment process, they are entitled to be considered against general category posts. Accordingly, State would be obliged to revise the select list of general category candidates and the petitioners would be entitled to appointment as teachers against the existing vacancies from the date other general category candidates were appointed, with all consequential benefits of seniority, pay fixation and notional benefits but not the actual salary to which they would be entitled only from the date of this order.

47. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed.

48. A copy of this judgment be placed on record of each connected appeal."

13. A bare perusal of the above direction reflects that the State

Authorities were directed by the Hon'ble Division Bench to revise

the select list of general category candidates. In the opinion of this

Court, that was a direction in rem and the state authorities were

under an obligation to comply with the same. Had the list of

general category candidates been revised in pursuance to the

above direction, definitely, the present petitioner who scored

higher marks than the last selected general category candidate,

(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 09:22:20 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44411] (5 of 6) [CW-12146/2025]

would ipso facto have found place in the final select list so as to be

held entitled to be afforded appointment.

14. Further, it is an admitted position that the recruitment

process in question has not yet been completed and seats qua the

said recruitment still remain vacant.

15. In view of the above admitted position, this Court is of the

clear opinion that even if the petitioner has approached this Court

with a delay, he can still be considered as the seats still remain

vacant. But then, definitely, the appointment of the petitioner

cannot be affected upon to the detriment of any other candidate

who might be ousted because of the appointment of the petitioner.

16. In view of the above, keeping into consideration the overall

facts, the present petition is disposed of with the following

directions:

(i) The respondents shall consider the petitioner as per his

secured marks qua the 'General category' and if the petitioner is

found to have secured more marks than the last selected General

category candidate, he shall be afforded appointment as per his

merit qua the TSP area.