Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shaitan Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:40058) on 9 September, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:40058]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15870/2025
Shaitan Ram S/o Shri Mota Ram, Aged About 36 Years, Resident
Of Village Mansagar, Post Danwara, Tehsil Baori, District Jodhpur
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Ayurved And Indian Medicine Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Deputy Secretary, Ayurved, Yoga And Naturopathy
Medicine, Unani, Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush)
Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Ayurved Department, Ashok Marg, Lohagal
Road, Savitri College Circle, Ajmer.
4. Additional Director (Administration), Directorate, Ayurved
Department, Ashok Marg, Lohagal Road, Ajmer.
5. Dr. Sarvepali Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved
Unhiversity, Through Its Registrar, Karwar, Nagaur Road,
Jodhpur (Raj.).
6. Deputy Director, Ayurved Department, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Y.P. Khileree
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tananjay Parmar for
Mr. Deepak Boda, Dy. G.C.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
Reportable
09/09/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order
dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure-12) whereby the appointment of the
petitioner on the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade stood
cancelled.
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 05:35:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40058] (2 of 11) [CW-15870/2025]
2. The facts are that the petitioner having work experience as
Compounder/Nurse with Dr. Sarvepali Radhakrishnan Rajasthan
Ayurved University, Jodhpur (respondent No.5) through placement
agency, participated in the recruitment process initiated in
pursuance to advertisement dated 07.06.2013.
3. As per condition No.7 of the said advertisement, bonus
marks were to be granted to the candidates having work
experience in terms of the conditions as specified therein.
4. At the first instance, the petitioner was not granted the
bonus marks and hence, he preferred a writ petition (S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.3906/2015) before this Court which was
dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2016. A Special Appeal (D.B.
Special Appeal (Writ) No.901/2016) was preferred against the said
order which came to be disposed of by the Division Bench vide
order dated 28.03.2017.
5. Before the Division Bench, it was argued on behalf of the
petitioner that the judgment as passed by the Division Bench of
this Court at Jaipur Bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.10246/2013; Yadvendra Shandilya & Ors. Vs. The State
of Rajasthan & Ors. (decided on 26.02.2016) was not
considered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ
petition.
6. Keeping into consideration the said submission, the Division
Bench disposed of the Special Appeal while granting a liberty to
the petitioner to file a review petition before the learned Single
Judge.
7. In pursuance to the said liberty, a review petition (S.B. Writ
Review No.75/2017) was filed by the petitioner which came to be
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 05:35:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40058] (3 of 11) [CW-15870/2025]
allowed vide order dated 24.08.2017. The Court while allowing the
review petition observed and held as under:
"This is how, the review petition has come before this
Court. Mr. Yashpal Khileree, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the controversy in question is
squarely covered bydecision of this Court dated
26.02.2016 rendered by a Division Bench in D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.10246/2013 titled as "Yadvendra Shandilya
& Ors. Vs. State (Ayurved Department) & Ors.",
whereby the Division Bench at Jaipur has held that the
persons appointed through placement agency or by the
National Institute of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan
Rajasthan Ayurved University are entitled for grant of
bonus marks in terms of Rule19 of the Scheme. The
relevant part of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment is
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
"We further make it clear that this Court has not
expressed about the individual petitioner whether he
had been engaged by the National Institute of Ayurved
or engaged through placement agency and it is for the
petitioner to place documentary evidence in support of
their claim but we may hold that as regard the
persons who are appointed through placement agency
or by the national Institute of Ayurved, by virtue of
decision of the State Government dated 08.02.2016 &
the judgment of which reference has been made
supra, may be considered for grant of benefit of bonus
marks in terms of proviso to Rule, 19 of the Scheme of
Rules for participating in the decision process and if
found suitable and finds place in the order of merit
after bonus marks may be considered for
appointment& with these directions/observations, the
writ petition stands disposed of."
Mr. Parvez, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents is not in a position to dispute the above
position of facts and law.
In view of extant factual and legal position, the
review petition is allowed and hence, the order under
Review/consideration dated 23.09.2016 is
reviewed/recalled.
In view of the Division Bench judgment dated
26.02.2016, it is declared that the petitioner having
worked as Ayurved Nurse/Compounder on contractual
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 05:35:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40058] (4 of 11) [CW-15870/2025]
basis with the respondent No.3 (Dr. Sarvepalli
Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University), is entitled
for bonus marks on the basis of experience certificate
dated 15.06.2013.
The respondents are directed to do the needful within
a period of eight weeks from today.
It is however, clarified that if the petitioner falls in
the merit list/select list, he shall be given appointment.
The petitioner shall be entitled to all the
consequential benefits notionally and his appointment shall
be treated from the date, candidates having equal
numbers were given appointment.
Petition allowed, however without any order as to
costs."
8. The judgment as passed by the Division Bench in Yadvendra
Shandilya (supra) was however assailed by the State before
Hon'ble the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.44-45/2020.
9. Vide order dated 07.01.2020, Hon'ble the Apex Court set
aside order dated 26.02.2016 passed in Yadvendra Shandilya
(supra) and remanded the matter back to the Division Bench for
decision afresh. However, Hon'ble the Apex Court directed for
maintaining the status quo with respect to employment as was
existing on the said date.
10. After the matter been remanded back, the Division Bench
after hearing the petitions, proceeded on to dismiss the same vide
judgment dated 12.12.2023. The Division Bench while dismissing
the petitions held as under:
7.12 Thus, consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and this Court in catena of decisions referred to
hearinabove leaves no manner of doubt that the
classification for the purposes of grant of bonus marks
under amended Rule 19 is based on intelligible differentia
and cannot be termed as unreasonable classification. The
petitioners' contention that the rules operate
discriminatory, cannot be accepted as the
petitioners have acquired experience while working
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 05:35:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40058] (5 of 11) [CW-15870/2025]
in a Research and Training Institute of Ayurveda,
be it under the Central Government, as there is
qualitative difference between the experience
gained while working in the State Government
Services and specified Institutions, mentioned in
the proviso to amended Rule 19.
7.13 The petitioners have placed heavy reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.
(Major) Meeta Sahai Versus State of Bihar & Others
(Supra). That was a case where the appellant's work
experience in an Army Hospital was not considered for
grant of weightage and consequential selection and
appointment as General Medical Officer in the State of
Bihar on the ground that Rule applicable therein
mandated that only services rendered in employment of
a hospital run by the Government of Bihar could not be
counted under the head of work experience. The decision
in the aforesaid case turned mainly on the interpretation
of the Rules. The consideration which weighed with the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satya Dev
Bhagaur & Others Versus State of Rajasthan and
Others (Supra) and other decisions of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad &
Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Others (Supra),
Sandeep Kumar Saini & Others Versus State of
Rajasthan & Others (Supra) and many other decisions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relied upon in the case of
Sandeep Kumar Saini & Others Versus State of
Rajasthan &Others (Supra), were neither raised nor
decided. The contention of the State and Public Service
Commission in that case are contained in paras 12 & 13
of the aforesaid judgment. The intelligible differentia
which, on facts, as considered in various decisions
hereinabove, was not even put-fourth and, therefore,
there was no occasion for the Hon'ble Supreme Court to
consider the case as to whether the classification was
based on intelligible differentia on that count.
7.13.1 Therefore, the aforesaid decision in the case of
Dr.(Major) Meeta Sahai Versus State of Bihar &
Others (Supra) is distinguishable.8. In the result, the
batch of writ petitions are sans-substratumand are
dismissed.
9. No order as to costs.
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 05:35:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40058] (6 of 11) [CW-15870/2025]
10. A copy of this order be placed on record of each
connected petition."
11. After judgment dated 12.12.2023 in Yadvendra Shandilya
(supra) been passed by the Division Bench, the respondent
authorities, vide order impugned dated 09.06.2025, observed that
the petitioner was not entitled for bonus marks and if the bonus
marks as awarded to him would not have been awarded, he would
not have been entitled for the appointment. The appointment as
granted to the petitioner was hence, cancelled.
12. Aggrieved of the above, the present writ petition has been
filed.
13. Counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the
review petition as filed by the petitioner was allowed in terms of
the Division Bench judgment in Yadvendra Shandilya (supra) but
then, the Special Appeal was decided on two grounds. Hon'ble the
Apex Court has remanded the matter back while dealing with only
one of the said grounds and not the other one. The finding on the
other ground recorded by the Division Bench having not been set
aside, the same would definitely govern the case of the petitioner.
14. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he having worked with
the University at Rajasthan, did not claim the bonus marks qua
any Central Government agency. The ratio laid down by the
Division Bench in Yadvendra Shandilya (supra) which has been set
aside by Hon'ble the Apex Court was qua the issue of the
candidates having experience with some Central Government
agencies only. That not being the case here, the petitioner
definitely cannot be covered by the judgment as passed by
Hon'ble the Apex Court.
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 05:35:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40058] (7 of 11) [CW-15870/2025]
15. Counsel submits that the petitioner would be covered by the
second issue as decided by the Division Bench in Yadvendra
Shandilya (supra). The said issue having not been considered and
adjudicated by Hon'ble the Apex Court and the judgment qua the
same having not been set aside, the same would definitely not
apply to the present petitioner.
16. Counsel further submits that the issue whether the
candidates having work experience with some State agency would
be entitled for bonus marks, has already been settled in several
other judgments and the petitioner would definitely be governed
by the said ratio.
17. In support of his submission, counsel relied upon the
judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a bunch
of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1723/2013;
Mitendra Singh Rathore & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors. (decided on 30.07.2013).
18. Counsel lastly submits that even otherwise vide notification
dated 12.06.2021, an amendment has been made in Rule 19 of
the Rules of 1966 whereby the name of Dr. Sarvepali
Radhakrishan Rajasthan Ayurved University, Jodhpur has been
included. Meaning thereby, the candidates having work experience
with the said University have now also been held entitled for
bonus marks.
19. In view of the amendment in Rule 19 of the Rules of 1966
also, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be interfered with
now, after he having worked for more than a period seven years.
20. Per contra counsel for the respondents submits that
judgment dated 26.02.2016 as passed by the Division Bench in
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 05:35:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40058] (8 of 11) [CW-15870/2025]
Yadvendra Shandilya (supra) having been set aside, no part of the
said judgment can be said to govern the issue. Once the judgment
has been set aside, no part of the said judgment can be read and
relied upon.
21. Counsel further submits that admittedly, the petitioner was
granted the bonus marks because of his review petition having
been decided in light of the Division Bench judgment in Yadvendra
Shandilya (supra). The said judgment having been set aside, the
petitioner definitely would have to face the same consequence and
the same fate. Once the Division Bench of this Court has now held
that such candidates would not be entitled to bonus marks, the
petitioner definitely cannot be differentiated and would have to
suffer the same fate.
22. Heard the counsels. Perused the record.
23. What is admitted on record is that the petitioner, at the first
instance, when not awarded the bonus marks, challenged the
same vide a writ petition before this Court.
24. It is not in dispute that the ground of his having work
experience with Dr. Sarvepali Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved
University, Jodhpur was very well raised at that point of time. The
Court did not entertain the said ground and the writ petition of the
petitioner was dismissed.
25. It is also an admitted fact that the special appeal as filed by
the petitioner against the rejection of his writ petition was
although disposed but a liberty was granted to him to file a review
petition only on the ground of the earlier Division Bench judgment
dated 26.02.2016 in Yadvendra Shandilya (supra) having not been
considered by the learned Single Judge.
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 05:35:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40058] (9 of 11) [CW-15870/2025]
26. A bare perusal of the order passed by the learned Single
Judge in S.B. Review Writ No.75/2017 (as reproduced
hereinabove) reflects that the said review petition was allowed
only in terms of of the ratio laid down in Yadvendra Shandilya
(supra). The learned Single Judge did not consider any other
aspect or ground.
27. Admittedly, judgment dated 26.02.2016 as passed in
Yadvendra Shandilya (supra) was set aside by Hon'ble the Apex
Court with the specific finding that letter dated 08.02.2016 as
relied upon by the Division Bench was subsequently withdrawn by
the State Government on 10.02.2017 and further that the said
communication was just an interpretation by one of the officers of
the Government. Neither could the same be termed to be a
Government order nor would it have the effect of modifying Rule
19 of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and
Naturopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1966.
28. A bare perusal of the judgment as rendered by the Division
Bench on 12.12.2023 in Yadvendra Shandilya (supra), after
remand, reflects that the Court in unequivocal terms held that the
classification as made by the State Government cannot be termed
to be unreasonable or arbitrary. Therein, the Court while
upholding the decision of grant of bonus marks to a limited
number of candidates having work experience with the specified
institutions/forums/agencies, was held to be good and the Court
declined to interfere with the same.
29. In view of the above facts, this Court is of the clear opinion
that once the petitioner chose to be governed by the ratio laid
down in Yadvendra Shandilya (supra) and even was granted the
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 05:35:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40058] (10 of 11) [CW-15870/2025]
relief in terms of the ratio laid down in the said judgment, he
cannot be now at this stage plead that his case is distinguishable
from that in Yadvendra Shandilya (supra).
30. As is the settled position of law if a litigant claims to be
governed by some other judgment or ratio laid down in some
other judgment and he is even granted some relief in pursuance
to the said relied upon judgment, he cannot subsequently turn
back and plead that his case is distinguishable from the said
judgment.
31. As held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.15076/2017; Narendra Kumar Chobdar &
Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (order dated 22.03.2018),
once an order is granted following/based on a particular order
passed in other case, the petitioner claiming similarity while
obtaining the said order has to swim or sink together i.e. the
order in subsequent case has to follow the same fate as in the
earlier case or vice versa. A similar view was taken by this Court
in S.B. Writ Contempt No.1182/2025; Pradeep Purbia vs.
The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (decided on 28.08.2025).
32. In view of the above settled position of law, this Court is of
the clear opinion that the petitioner having been granted the relief
by virtue of his review petition been allowed in light of the Division
bench judgment in Yadvendra Shandilya (supra), would definitely
be governed by the same ratio after judgment dated 26.02.2016
in Yadvendra Shandilya (supra) been set aside.
33. So far as the ground of the petitioner being entitled in view
of the amendment in Rule 19 of the Rules of 1966 vide notification
dated 12.06.2021 is concerned, admittedly, the recruitment
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 05:35:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40058] (11 of 11) [CW-15870/2025]
process in question was initiated vide advertisement dated
07.06.2013. By all means, the said recruitment process stood
complete prior to notification dated 12.06.2021 having come into
effect. Even the petitioner was afforded appointment in the year
2018. By any means, notification dated 12.06.2021 cannot have a
retrospective effect and it cannot be concluded that amendment in
Rule 19 vide notification dated 12.06.2021 would apply to the
recruitment process of year 2013.
34. Further, amendment in Rule 19 of the Rules of 1966 vide
notification dated 12.06.2021 itself fortifies the fact that
candidates having work experience with Dr. Sarvepali
Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University were not entitled to
bonus marks prior to the said notification having come into effect.
35. In view of the above overall analysis, this Court does not find
any ground to interfere with the order impugned and the writ
petition is hence dismissed.
36. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
344-KashishS/-
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 05:35:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
