Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Saroj Vishnoi vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:47160) on 28 October, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:47160]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4997/2024
Saroj Vishnoi D/o Om Prakash Vishnoi, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident Of Saran Nagar, V/p- Banwarla, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Directorate Of
Secondary Education, Bikaner.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (Rssb), Through Its
Secretary, State Institute Of Agriculture Management
Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur - 302018, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Sharma
Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Verma
Ms. Nandipana Gehlot
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
28/10/2025
1. In pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.12.2022 issued
by the respondents for filling up the posts of Teacher at Secondary
School (Level Second, Class 6 to 8), the petitioner applied in the
category of Specially Education (V.I.) (OBC). When the final result
was declared, the the petitioner was declared ineligible with the
remark "Take Marks Benefit so Not Eligible in General". The
grivance of the petitioner is that having secured higher marks in
the examination, as compared to General category candidates, her
candiature was required to be taken into consideration for General
Category posts by applying the migration rule and she having
declared qualified in her Graduation Examination with relaxed
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 01:45:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47160] (2 of 4) [CW-4997/2024]
criteria cannot be denied migration as the said examination was
not part of the recruitment process.
2. Learned counsel for the petitiner submits that the issue
involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the
decision rendered by the Division Bench of this court in a batch of
Special Appeals (Writ) led by D.B. Civil Special Appeal
(Writ) No.31/2024 (Deepika Kunwar Chundawat Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 26.05.2025 with the only
distiction that in the petitioners-appellants in the said case could
not secure 60% marks in the REET Examination, but they were
declared having passed in REET examination with relaxed criteria
applicable to reserved category upon obtaining 55% marks. The
Division Bench in the said held that once it is concluded that in the
present cases, application of rule of mirgration is restricted only in
thoses cases where a candidate has taken benefit of any of the
relaxation, as stated in Clause 8 of the advertisement in the
process of recruitment that he/she may not be entitled to be
considered agianst Geneeral Category posts. If a candidate has
entered into the process of selection by acquiring eligibility criteria
on relaxaed standard, in the absence of there being any express
provision contained in the applicable policy, the benefit of
migration could not be denied.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of
the petitioner stands even on better footing than the petitioners-
appellants in the cases of Deepika Kunwar Chundawat and others
because her candiature has been rejected merely on the basis of
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 01:45:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47160] (3 of 4) [CW-4997/2024]
the marks obtained in the Graduation, whereas after that she has
secured around 71% marks in both B.Ed. and REET Examination.
Learned counsel further submits that after passing of the
judgment in the case of Deepika Kunwar Chundawat (supra), the
respondents have reshuffled the result and whereafter the new
cut-off marks for the Sepcial Education (V.I.) Category has been
declared as 196.5724, whereas the petitioner has secured
202.2828 marks, hence, her candiature ought not have been
rejected by the respondents on the ground of "Take Marks Benefit
so Not Eligible in Geneeral".
4. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner, this court is of the considered opinion
that the case of the petitioner falls within the four corners of the
principle enunciated by the Division Bench in the case of Deepika
Kunwar Chundawat (supra), rather it stands on better footing than
those candidates and hence, the action of the respondents in
rejecting her candiature cannot be sustained. The petitioner is
held entitled to the rule of migration. That means, since she has
obtained marks more than general category candidates in the
recruitment process, she is entitled to be considered against
general category post. The petitioner would be entitled to
appintment as Teacher against the existing vacancy 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 she would be entitled
only from the date of this order. The respondents shall comply
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 01:45:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47160] (4 of 4) [CW-4997/2024]
with this order within a period of six weeks from date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
5. The writ petition is allowed in these terms. All pending
applications are dispose of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
253-Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 01:45:35 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
