[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinod Bhoi vs The Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan ... on 16 April, 2026
Author: Anand Sharma
Bench: Anand Sharma
[2026:RJ-JD:17755]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7175/2026
1. Vinod Bhoi S/o Shri Manna Lal Bhoi, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Basad, Tehsil And District Pratapgarh (Raj.).
2. Bharat Lal Kumawat S/o Shri Tulsi Ram, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Morjhar, Richhawara, District Pratapgarh
(Raj.).
3. Piyush Patidar S/o Shri Mohanlal Patidar, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Parsoliya, Biloda, Arthuna, District Banswara
(Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Limited, (A
Government Of Rajasthan Undertaking), Registered Office
And H. Q. - Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.), Through Its Chairman And Managing Director.
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Limited
(A Government Of Rajasthan Undertaking), Registered
Office And H. Q. - Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar,
Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The Chief Personnel Officer, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut
Utpadan Limited (A Government Of Rajasthan
Undertaking), Registered Office And H. Q. - Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Sangwa, Adv.
Mr. Dinesh Kashniya, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vipul Dharniya, Adv.
Ms. Anushka Jain, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Order
16/04/2026
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with
following prayers:-
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 11:18:04 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17755] (2 of 6) [CW-7175/2026]
"It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed
that this writ petition of the petitioners may kindly
be allowed and :
(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
impugned decision/action of the respondents in
excluding the name of the petitioners from the list
of candidates called for documents verification
dated 01.04.2026 to 17.04.2026 (Annexure-9) on
the ground of being overage, thereby quashing and
setting aside the said list (Annex.-9) whereby the
petitioners excluded from the same.
(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
respondents may kindly be directed to forthwith
issue a fresh list of candidates to be called for the
documents verification while including the name of
the petitioners in the same, in pursuance of the
advertisement dated 20.02.2025 (Annex.2) and to
consider his candidature against the respective
category, and thereafter to select and appoint the
petitioner on the post of Technician-III
(ITI)/Operator-III (ITI)/Plant Attendant-III (ITI),
with all consequential benefits.
(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems
fit, just and proper, by which the petitioner may get
complete justice may also kindly be passed.
(iv) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly
be allowed with exemplary costs."
2. It is stated that the respondent-Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut
Utpadan Limited issued an advertisement dated 20.02.2025 for
common recruitment of Technician-III (ITI) and other posts. In the
advertisement, different vacancies were shown for Non-TSP Areas
and TSP Areas. Petitioners applied for TSP Area as 'BC' candidate
and after completion of recruitment process secured 67.25, 55.5
and 48.75 marks respectively.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners were not considered for TSP Areas only on account of
the fact that reservation for 'BC' candidates was not provided for
the vacancies of TSP Areas. Learned counsel submits that even if,
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 11:18:04 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17755] (3 of 6) [CW-7175/2026]
the petitioners are not considered to be a candidate of 'BC'
category, in that case, the petitioners have got legitimate right to
claim vacancy of 'General' category candidate. Learned counsel for
the petitioners indicate that in reply to the writ petition,
respondents have disclosed that cut off marks for 'General'
category candidate in TSP Area are 45.25 and since, the
petitioners have secured more marks then the cut off marks
declared by respondents for the vacancy of TSP Area, therefore,
the petitioners have got right to claim of appointment, yet the
respondents have wrongfully excluded the petitioners from the
process.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the
judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deepika
Kunwar Chundawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B.
Special Appeal (Writ) No.31/2024) decided on 26.05.2025.
5. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents
by way of filing reply and has submitted that the petitioners have
approached this Court with distorted and incomplete facts. Correct
facts are that even the advertisement was quite clear that no
vacancy has been reserved for 'BC' category in TSP Areas. Despite
that, the petitioners submitted application for TSP Areas, applied
in 'BC' category.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that even
if, the contention of the petitioners is taken at its face value that in
the eventuality of there being no reserved vacancy for 'BC' in TSP
Areas, the petitioners can be treated as Unreserved ('General'
category candidates), even then, the petitioners were not eligible
for the reasons that the petitioners have crossed the maximum
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 11:18:04 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17755] (4 of 6) [CW-7175/2026]
permissible age of 30 years and since, there was no vacancy
reserved for 'BC' in TSP Areas, therefore, the relaxation of 5
years, otherwise admissible to the candidates of 'BC' category,
was not available to the petitioners. Hence, on account of being
age barred, the petitioners were ineligible against the vacancy of
TSP Areas.
7. Learned counsel submits that so far as the marks
secured by the petitioners are concerned, the petitioners have
admittedly secured 67.25, 55.5 and 48.75 marks respectively,
whereas cut off marks declared by the respondents for Non-TSP
Areas are 84 for Unreserved/General category and 78.75 for 'BC'
category. Learned counsel submits that even if, the application
forms submitted by the petitioners are considered against the
vacancy of Non-TSP Areas, the petitioners are not entitled for
seeking appointment on account of securing lesser marks then the
cut off marks.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the
judgment dated 20.09.2022 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Samarath Mal Kumhar & Ors. Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.12859/2018).
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
10. It is not a matter of dispute between the parties that no
vacancy in TSP Areas was reserved for 'BC' category candidate.
Under such circumstances, the petitioners, although submitted
application forms for the vacancy of TSP Areas, they cannot claim
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 11:18:04 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17755] (5 of 6) [CW-7175/2026]
appointment against 'BC' category on account of there being no
reservation for 'BC' category in TSP Areas.
11. This Court finds merit in the submission made by
learned counsel for the respondents that even if, the candidature
of the petitioners are considered against vacancies of Unreserved/
General category in TSP Areas, maximum age limit provided in
advertisement for the candidates is 30 years and as the
petitioners have attained age of more than 30 years on the
relevant date, therefore, they were not eligible for being
considered as 'General' category candidate for the vacancies of
TSP Areas. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners
that since, the petitioners belong to 'BC' category, therefore, they
were entitled for age relaxation of 5 years meant for candidate of
'BC' category is totally misconceived and baseless. When no
vacancy whatsoever has been reserved for 'BC' category in TSP
Area, there is no question of claiming age relaxation, which is
otherwise admissible for candidates of 'BC' category.
12. Admittedly, the petitioners have secured 67.25, 55.5
and 48.75 marks respectively in the recruitment examination,
which is indisputedly lesser than the cut off marks declared either
for Unreserved/General category or 'BC' category for the
vacancies of Non-TSP Areas. Hence, the petitioners also cannot
claim appointment against the vacancies advertised for Non-TSP
Areas.
13. As regards, the judgment of Deepika Kunwar
Chundawat (supra) relied upon by the petitioners, the question
for consideration in the case has been reproduced in para 31 of
the judgment, which is related to granting relaxation to the
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 11:18:04 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17755] (6 of 6) [CW-7175/2026]
candidates ranging from 10% to 20% in TET marks to different
reserve categories as mentioned in the notification and other
questions are also related to relaxation in TET examination. The
issue involved in the instant case has nowhere been discussed in
the judgment of Deepika Kunwar Chundawat (supra) by the
Division Bench of this Court. Hence, the said judgment is not at all
attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
14. In the case of Samarath Mal Kumhar & Ors.
(supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has given an
observation that when no reservation is admissible belonging to a
particular category, then question of relaxation of any kind does
not arise.
15. In the light of foregoing discussions, this Court finds
that the respondents have rightly not appointed the petitioners on
the post advertised vide advertisement dated 20.02.2025 and
there is no scope of interference in the instant writ petition,
hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
322-Jatin
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 11:18:04 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
