[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Amar Deep Sharma vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 10 February, 2026

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:7459]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12413/2025
Amar Deep Sharma S/o Shri Devki Nandan Sharma, Aged About
38 Years, R/o Present Place Of Posting Government Upper
Primary School, Banwaron Ki Dhani Pur, Rajeev Nagar, District
Jalore, Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
         Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
         Jaipur.
2.       Director, Secondary           Education,         Directorate    Bikaner,
         Rajasthan.
3.       State Project Director And Commissioner, Rajasthan
         School Shiksha Parishad, Jaipur.
4.       Deputy Director (Mahatma Gandhi School), Secondary
         Education Rajasthan, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. V.L.S. Rajpurohit.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. N.K. Mehta, AGC.


               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

10/02/2026

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming following

relief(s):

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction:

i. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the point no.7 & 8 both important instructions given in admit card (Annex.3) may kindly be quashed and set-aside. ii. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondent may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-I and grant appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-I in pursuance to notification dated 11.07.2024 (Annex.-1) with all consequential benefits. iii. Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble High Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 05:01:43 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7459] (2 of 8) [CW-12413/2025]

iv. Cost of this writ petition may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. Factual prism obtaining in the present case is that petitioner

is a Teacher Grade-III Level-I, presently posted at the

Government Upper Primary School, Banwaron ki Dhani Pur, Rajeev

Nagar, District Jalore, Rajasthan, and a resident of District Bundi.

Pursuant to notification dated 11.07.2024 (Annex.1) issued by the

respondent No.2, applications were invited for filling vacancies of

Teacher Grade-III Level-I in Mahatma Gandhi Government

(English Medium) School and Swami Vivekanand Government

Adarsh School (English Medium).

3. Selection hinged on a written examination requiring a

minimum qualifying score of 40 out of 100 marks, with negative

marking of 1/4 marks per incorrect answer. Being eligible, the

petitioner applied for Districts Bundi, Baran, Bhilwara, Jaipur, and

Chittorgarh. He was issued an admit card and appeared for the

examination on 25.08.2024 as scheduled, ultimately securing 51

marks upon result declaration. Notably, points 7 and 8, requiring

darkening of circles in the question booklet, were inserted mid-

process, absent from the original notification.

4. Vide press note dated 26.06.2025 (Annex.6), qualified

candidates were directed to submit district preferences via the

Shala Darpan Portal for available vacancies. District and school

allotments followed on 30.06.2025 (Annex.7), with joining

instructions. The petitioner attempted compliance but encountered

unavailability of options, unlike candidates scoring lower marks.

Upon departmental inquiry, he learned his candidature had been

cancelled under point 8 of the admit card instructions for failing to

darken any of the five circles in more than 10% of the question

(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 05:01:43 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7459] (3 of 8) [CW-12413/2025]

booklet questions, as evidenced by the annexed OMR sheet

(Annex.5).

5. Aggrieved by this differential treatment and procedural

irregularity, the petitioner invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of

this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents, at the

time of issuing advertisement dated 11.07.2024 (Annex.1) had

laid down the selection criteria; wherein, a note was mentioned

that for each wrong answer, 1/4 th marks would be deducted;

whereas, at the time of issuing Admit Card (Annex.3), the

respondents had changed the rules of the game as it bears

instructions that if a candidate is not attempting a particular

question, then Circle Ⓔ is required to be darken and in case none

of the five circles is darkened, then, 1/4 th marks shall be deducted,

along with the instruction that if none of the five circles is darken

by a candidate in more than 10% questions, then that candidate

would be disqualified. He submits that the petitioner has acquired

51 marks as per the result generated by the respondents,

however, a candidate having lower marks then the petitioner has

been declared successful and has been allotted respective school.

He submits that the petitioner was disqualified wholly on the

ground that petitioner has not darken any of the five circles in

more than 10% questions. He also submits that in the

advertisement dated 11.07.2024 (Annex.1), the respondents had

not laid down such condition(s) and thus, further addition of the

conditions in the admit card amounts to changing the rules of the

game. He further submits that the admit card was issued a date

prior to the scheduled date of examination on account of which,

(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 05:01:43 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7459] (4 of 8) [CW-12413/2025]

the petitioner could not prepare himself mentally to fulfill the

additional instruction laid down in the admit card.

7. In support of his contentions, counsel representing the

petitioner places reliance upon the order dated 14.12.2021 passed

by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SBCWP

No.7352/2021 entitled "Aashish Kumar v. The State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (along with other connected matters)".

8. On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Mehta, learned AGC, opposed

the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel and submits

that the criteria for selection has not been changed and only an

additional instruction has been given in the admit card directing

candidates to darken any of the five circles in the OMR Sheet and

in case the same is not found darken to the extent of 10%

questions, then, the candidate would be disqualified. He further

submits that the admit card was duly issued to the petitioner well

in advance of the date of written examination accompanied by a

note specifying that comprehensive instructions were prominently

displayed on both: the question paper and the OMR sheet. Once

these instructions stood clearly notified prior to the examination,

nothing precluded the petitioner from adhering to same.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have

perused the material available on record.

10. This Court finds that in the Advertisement dated 11.07.2024

(Annex.1), the selection criteria indicates that for every wrong

answer or more than one answer attempted in the question paper

booklet, 1/4th marks would be deducted apart from the fact that

the question paper would be in the form of multiple option

question paper. The said condition is reproduced hereunder:

(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 05:01:43 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7459] (5 of 8) [CW-12413/2025]

"xxxxxxx नोट :- 1. समस्त प्रश्न बहुविकल्पी प्रकार के होंगे।

2. प्रत्येक गलत उत्तर अथवा एक से अधिक उत्तर के ¼ अंक काटे जाऐंगे।

xxxxxxx"

11. Admittedly, petitioner was issued an admit card prior to the

date of commencement of the examination which is reflected as

25.08.2024 along with instructions that the candidates are

required to darken Circle Ⓔ in case they do not attempt the

question and further, if none of the five circles are darken, 1/4 th

marks would be deducted along with the condition that the

candidates who do not darken any of the five circles in more than

10% questions, would stand disqualified. The said instructions are

reproduced hereunder:

"Important Instructions xxxxxxx

7. If you are not attempting a question then you have to darken the circle E; if none of the five circles (bubble) is darkened, ¼ marks shall be deducted.

8. A candidate who has not darkened any of the five circles in more the 10% questions shall be disqualified. xxxxxx"

12. As per the submissions of the petitioner's counsel as well as

the respondents' counsel, the petitioner has been disqualified on

the ground that, after evaluation of the OMR Sheet, it was found

that the petitioner did not darken any of the five circles in more

than 10% of the questions. The contention of the petitioner's

counsel that, on account of a change in the rules of the game, the

petitioner stood disqualified, and further that the respondents

could not change the rules of the game in the midst of the

selection process, does not stand to scrutiny. This is for the reason

that the selection criteria, as well as the qualifications prescribed

by the respondents for the purpose of appointment to the post of

(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 05:01:43 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7459] (6 of 8) [CW-12413/2025]

Teacher Grade-III Level-I, have not been changed in the midst of

the selection process.

13. Furthermore, it is only for the purpose of specifying the

manner in which the candidate is required to attempt the

questions reflected in the OMR Sheet that the instruction was

issued by the respondents in the admit card, and that too prior to

the scheduled date of the written examination. Counsel for the

petitioner is not in a position to demonstrate what precluded the

petitioner or what prejudice would have caused to the petitioner

from darkening any of the five circles for the questions that he did

not attempt, coupled with the fact that it was known to the

petitioner that, in case he did not darken five circles for the

unattempted questions, not only would 1/4th marks be deducted,

but also, if the questions were found to be more than 10%, he

would stand disqualified. Knowing about the said instructions, the

petitioner still chose not to darken five circles in more than 10% of

the questions. Also, the instructions nos.7 and 8 in the Admit Card

were uniform for all the candidates and thus, the yardstick in the

form of instruction was same for the candidates. The respondent

while putting these instructions in the Admit Card have not

changed the level playing field for the petitioner and other

candidates causing prejudice to them.

14. It is further observed that the petitioner has laid a challenge

to Instructions Nos.7 and 8 mentioned in the Admit Card, which

reflects that the petitioner, with open eyes, participated in the

selection process while accepting the said instructions. It is only

after he was declared disqualified in the selection process based

on Conditions Nos. 7 and 8 that the petitioner chose to challenge

(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 05:01:43 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7459] (7 of 8) [CW-12413/2025]

the same, which is not permissible as per the law laid down by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors.

v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. decided on

28.03.2023 reported in (2023) INSC 309 as well as in the case

of HC Pradeep Kumar Rai and Ors. v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey

and Ors. decided on 11.05.2015 reported in (2015) 11 SCC

493. Relevant paras of the aforesaid decisions rendered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, are reproduced hereunder:

In the case of Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra):

"xxxxxx 13.1. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In other words, simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process. Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned before a Court of law, the rationale behind recasting the selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been so recast. Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against the same only after they had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process, at which stage, the challenge ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence."

In the case of HC Pradeep Kumar Rai (supra):

"xxxxxx

16. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the Appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the Appellants did not challenge it at that time. Thus, it appears that only when the Appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted."

(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 05:01:43 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7459] (8 of 8) [CW-12413/2025]

15. This Court observes that the law is well settled that a

candidate cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the

same time. Once a candidate knowingly accepts the terms of the

selection process and participates in it without raising any

objection, he cannot later turn around and challenge those very

terms after being declared unsuccessful. Such a challenge, raised

only after an adverse result, is not permissible in law and is

contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra) and HC Pradeep Kumar Rai

(supra).