Nakhat Singh vs The Rajasthan Public Service ... on 3 February, 2026

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:6148]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 41/2024

Nakhat Singh S/o Shri Jethu Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Village     Khirjan    Asha,       Tehsil      Shergarh,           District     Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
                                                                           ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.        The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
          Secretary, Ghughra Ghati Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
2.        The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
          Ghughra Ghati, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
3.        The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner,
          Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. M.L. Deora
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Tarun Joshi, through V.C.
                                  Mr. Vikram Singh



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

03/02/2026

1. This review petition has been preferred with the following

prayers:

"It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this review petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and the documents annexed with the application may kindly be taken on the record and order dated 30.01.2024 may kindly be reviewed/cancelled and fresh orders allowing the writ petition may kindly be passed as passed in similar writ petitions in pursuance to senior teacher (Teacher Grade-II) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 04.09.2018, Wherein names has been recommended and appointment has been given by the respondent to exactly similar situated candidates in

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 01:25:29 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6148] (2 of 4) [WRW-41/2024]

pursuance of notification dated 17.04.2018 and circular dated 21.05.2019 as part and partial of the writ petition."

2. The order under review dated 30.01.2024 was passed in S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.18485/2022 by this Hon'ble Court on the

joint request made by the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Today as well, a joint request has been made submitting that

erroneously, the order under review was passed by following the

order passed in "Surendra Singh vs. RPSC & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ

Petition No.4292/2021, decided by this Hon'ble Court on

14.12.2023)", instead of the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble

Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7393/2020, "Rakesh

Kumar Swami & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan" decided on

05.07.2021, and therefore, learned counsel prays that the

impugned order may be reviewed to be decided as per Rakesh

Kumar Swami & Ors. (supra). The said order dated

05.07.2021 reads as under:

"IA No.1/2021:

(1) The present application had been initially filed by the three applicants seeking their impleadment in the present writ petition as respondents.

(2) Dr. Nupur Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the applicants at the outset submits that the applicants nos.1 and 2 have already been selected and thus, she does not press the application on behalf of the said applicants. (3) In view of the above, the application filed by the applicants nos.1 and 2 is dismissed as not pressed. The application is being considered for applicant No.3 Dalip Kumar Dhilan.

(4) Dr. Bhati, learned counsel, contends that if the petition is allowed in terms of the circular dated 21.05.2019 (Annex.2), the rights of the applicant No.3 will be adversely affected. According to her the circular (Annex.2) issued by the State Government is not in conformity with the notification dated 17.4.2018, by which Rule 6B has been inserted in Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-

servicemen) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' or 'the Rules of 1988').

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 01:25:29 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6148] (3 of 4) [WRW-41/2024]

(5) In considered opinion of this Court, once the State Government has issued a circular and has given its own interpretation of the notification, the applicant cannot come in way of the petitioners who claim relief flowing from the circular issued by the State Government. (6) The application is therefore, rejected. (7) Needless to observe that if the applicant wishes to challenge the circular on the grounds available to him, the disposal of the present application shall not come in his way.

SBCWP No.7393/2020:

(8) Mr. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited Court's attention towards the amendment brought in the Rules of 1988 vide notification dated 17.4.2018 and submitted recruitment process. that by way of Rule 6B, ex-servicemen, who have moved application for retirement have been permitted to take part in the recruitment process.

(9) While maintaining that the petitioners, having resigned before submitting application forms are not only eligible for consideration, but also entitled to be offered appointment, learned counsel submitted that in light of circular dated 21.5.2019 (Annex.2) issued by the Personnel Department of the State Government, there remains no doubt about petitioners' eligibility. He argued that petitioners' case is squarely covered by the circular and thus, a direction be issued to the respondent - RPSC to consider their candidature in terms of the notification dated 17.4.2018 and circular dated 21.5.2019.

(10) Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that an additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioners, placing on record copies of the letters dated 5.8.2020 and 12.4.20212 issued by the State Government. (11) He submitted that though petitioners' candidature has been considered by the respondent-RPSC in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 19.8.2020, however, for no reason (perhaps on account of pendency of the present writ petition) respondent - RPSC has not recommended their name.

(12) Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent RPSC argued that though the State Government has issued circular (Annex.2) dated 21.5.2019, yet doubt(s) regarding eligibility of the candidates is not yet clear.

(13) In the opinion of this Court, once the State Government itself has issued a clarificatory circular dated 21.5.2019 and clarified its stand about the notification dated 17.4.2018, the respondent contrary view. RPSC- a recruiting agency is bound by the same. It cannot take a contrary view.

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 01:25:29 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6148] (4 of 4) [WRW-41/2024]

(14) The respondent-RPSC is, therefore, directed to consider petitioners' case in the light of notification dated 17.4.2018 and circular dated 21.5.2019 and recommend names of those petitioners, who according to these notification/circular are eligible and of course meritorious and otherwise eligible.

(15) If respondent-RPSC is of the view that any of the petitioners is not eligible in the light of the notification dated 17.4.2018 and circular dated 21.5.2019, it shall pass a speaking order under the intimation to the concerned petitioner, against which, such petitioner's right to take legal remedies shall stand reserved.

(16) Needfull be done within a period of four weeks from today.

(17) The writ petition as well as all pending interlocutory applications are disposed of accordingly."

4. In light of such joint submission, the review petition is

allowed and while finding the instant matter to be covered by the

judgment rendered in Rakesh Kumar Swami & Ors. (supra),

the petitioner is granted liberty to submit a representation before

the authority concerned, who in turn shall consider and decide

such representation by passing a speaking order, strictly in

accordance with the judgment rendered in Rakesh Kumar

Swami & Ors. (supra).

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J S-160-KshamaD/-

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 01:25:29 PM)