[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Barkha Singh Inaniya vs Deepti Choudhary ... on 24 February, 2026

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:9794-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1202/2025

Pooja Ratnu D/o Jai Singh Ratnu, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Plot
No. 56, Radha Govind Colony, Sikar Road, Jaipur 302039.
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                      Versus
1.       Deepti Choudhary D/o Shri Govindram Choudhary, Aged
         About 43 Years, R/o House No. 8, Street No. 5, Vijay
         Nagar, Opposite Bhagat Ki Kothi, Police Chowki, Jodhpur,
         Rajasthan.
2.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Town, Planner,
         Town Planning Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
         Jaipur.
3.       The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
         Secretary, Ajmer.
                                                                   ----Respondents
                                Connected With
                D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1203/2025
The     Rajasthan      Public      Service       Commission,         Through    Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                      Versus
1.       Deepti Choudhary D/o Shri Govind Ram Choudhary, R/o
         House No. 8, Street No. 5, Vijay Nagar, Opposite Bhagat
         Ki Kothi, Police Chowki, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Town Planner,
         Town Planning Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
         Jaipur.
                                                                   ----Respondents
                D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1302/2025
Barkha Singh Inaniya D/o Shri Bhupendra Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Near Jhalra Kuwa, Satsang Bhawan Road, Rajpura
Ward, District Baran (Rajasthan).
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                      Versus
1.       Deepti Choudhary D/o Sri Govindram Choudhary, R/o
         House No. 8, Street No. 5, Vijay Nagar, Opposite Bhagat

                        (Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 05:25:21 PM)
                       (Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:47:42 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:9794-DB]                    (2 of 9)                        [SAW-1202/2025]


         Ki Kothi, Police Chowki, Jodhpur.
2.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Town Planner,
         Town Planning Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
         Jaipur.
3.       The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
         Secretary, Ajmer.
                                                                     ----Respondents
                D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1793/2025
The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Town Planner Town
Planning Department Government Of Rajasthan Jaipur.
                                                                        ----Appellant
                                       Versus
1.       Deepti Choudhary D/o Shri Govind Ram Choudhary, Aged
         About 43 Years, R/o House No 8 Street No 5 Vijay Nagar
         Opposite       Bhagat       Ki     Kothi      Police       Chowki   Jodhpur
         Rajasthan.
2.       The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
         Secretary Ajmer.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Adv. & AAG
                                   assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot.
                                   Dr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Adv. assisted by
                                   Mr. Sachin Saraswat.
                                   Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit.
                                   Mr. Hanuman Singh Choudhary.
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Deepesh Singh Beniwal.



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Judgment

24/02/2026

1. The matters have come up for consideration on an

application (IA No.01/25) in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)

No.1202/2025, whereby the applicant-appellant has sought leave

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 05:25:21 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9794-DB] (3 of 9) [SAW-1202/2025]

to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment and order of

the learned Single Bench.

2. Having considered the averments made in the application for

leave to appeal and the submissions advanced by learned counsel

for the applicant-appellant, sufficient grounds are made out for

grant of leave to appeal. Accordingly, application (IA No.01/2025

in DBSAW No.1202/2025) is allowed. The applicant-Pooja Ratnu,

who was not a party before the learned Single Judge in the writ

petition, is treated as the appellant.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

matters have been heard finally and are being disposed of at this

stage itself.

4. This batch of Special Appeals (Writ) arises out of a common

factual matrix and seeks substantially identical reliefs against the

common judgment and order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the

learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7464/2025.

Owing to the considerable overlap of facts, issues, and reliefs

involved, all the appeals have been heard analogously and are

being decided by this common judgment. For the sake of

convenience, clarity and uniformity of reference, D.B. Special

Appeal Writ No. 1202/2025 -- Pooja Ratnu v. Deepti Choudhary --

is being treated as the lead case, and the facts, background and

reliefs are being noticed and extracted therefrom.

5. The relief clause as prayed for in the said appeal is

reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 05:25:21 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9794-DB] (4 of 9) [SAW-1202/2025]

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this Civil Special Appeal (Writ) and further be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7464/2025 and the respondent may be directed to consider the candidature of the appellant in accordance with law for the post of Assistant Town Planner under the Backward Class (Women) category.

Any other appropriate order or direction this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the appellant."

6. Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Senior Counsel & AAG assisted by

Mr. Ayush Gehlot, appearing on behalf of the State submits that

the Hon'ble Court has allowed the prayers while evaluating the

work experience of two years as per the requirements of the

advertisement, whereas the experts committee duly constituted

by the State has examined the same and the requisite two years'

experience was not found to be made out.

6.1 Learned AAG further submits that the advertisement dated

04.10.2022 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission

(hereinafter referred to as "RPSC") pertained to recruitment for

the post of Assistant Town Planner to the Rajasthan Town Planning

Service under the Rajasthan Town Planning Service Rules, 1966.

The applications were duly submitted and in pursuance thereof,

the written examination was conducted by the RPSC on

16.06.2023. The select list was thereafter, declared on

15.05.2024, and the selected candidates were called for document

verification on 06/07.06.2024. The appointment letters were

accordingly issued to 24 eligible candidates; however, the private

respondent was not included in the said list. The reason for her

non-inclusion was duly communicated to her, namely that her

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 05:25:21 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9794-DB] (5 of 9) [SAW-1202/2025]

claimed work experience for the post of Assistant Town Planner did

not meet the prescribed standard and was not upto the mark. The

RPSC informed her that her candidature for appointment on the

post of Assistant Town Planner stood rejected on account of non-

fulfillment of the eligibility criteria pertaining to educational

qualifications and work experience. The rejected candidates were

accordingly notified, pursuant to which the challenge in the writ

petition came to be filed.

6.2 Learned AAG also submits that the writ petition has been

allowed by the learned Single Bench, while dealing that there are

certain Bank statements and the record of the JDA indicate that

the respondent was in service for about six months and for rest of

the period, the certificates from the private agency is on record.

The dedicated consultance as per the learned AAG and the counsel

representing the RPSC Mr. Rajpurohit ought to have carried on

sufficient record so as to demonstrate the continuous and

uninterrupted experience of the respondent whereas the Bank

statements placed on record pertained only to the period from

26.08.2013 to 31.03.2014 whereas a grey area of 31.03.2014 to

28.10.2015 remained.

6.3 Learned AAG further submits that the Committee formation

has examined the documents at length and recorded specific

findings. The certificates which appeared to be unclear, unreliable,

and unauthentic could not have been accepted at face value, and

once the Expert Committee had applied its mind, thereafter,

unless any cogent and directly demonstrable material is placed on

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 05:25:21 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9794-DB] (6 of 9) [SAW-1202/2025]

record to the contrary, the Hon'ble Court may not be inclined to

interfere in the matter.

6.4 Learned AAG also submits that the claimed work experience

was directly co-related to work executed for the JDA, and

accordingly the records and documentation of the JDA authorities

were required to be carefully examined. Though the agency

appeared to have undertaken work for the JDA during a particular

period in 2013-14, the same could not be construed to

automatically establish that the respondent was discharging the

same professional duties throughout the entirety of the claimed

experience period, more particularly in the absence of any

corresponding salary credit in her Bank account.

7. Per contra, Mr. Beniwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondent vehemently submits that the learned Single

Bench had rightly arrived at a conclusion that the work experience

of the respondent was appropriate and duly established and that

in view of her merits, the appointment ought to have been

conferred upon her. He further submits that once a proper

certificate was in place and the agency has discharged its

contractual obligations towards the JDA for the relevant period,

there was no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the same and

particularly, when the Committee itself had not verified the

documents as stated by them in their conclusion.

7.1 Mr. Beniwal also tried to persuade this Court that once the

nexus between the JDA and private agency, which has issued the

appointment order and experience certificate, stood established,

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 05:25:21 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9794-DB] (7 of 9) [SAW-1202/2025]

there remained no sustainable ground to doubt the authenticity or

veracity of such certificate or it was merely a co-relative

transaction, which would have happened and which would have

resulted into the said experience having been obtained by the

concerned respondent for the purpose of entitling her to be

eligible and meritorious for appointment to the said post.

7.2 Mr. Beniwal further pointed out that the Committee has

appropriately taken into account certain Bank accounts, but the

State and the RPSC could not have ignored that for some months,

the payment of a private agency could have been made by cash.

7.3 In support of his submissions, Mr. Beniwal placed reliance

upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Krishan Lal v. State of Haryana and Others : (2009) 14

Supreme Court Cases 745, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had

held that non-paying of PF amount to a particular employee does

not amount to a conclusion that he was not actually an employee

and rather PF was a requirement which as per the entitlement an

employee would get or not get, but such conditions would not

indicate that whether he was a continuous employee or not.

7.4 Mr. Beniwal has also submitted that once a certificate of

experience is duly issued by a competent authority, the same

ought to be accepted unless it is verified from the concerned

company and it is established that such company, despite having a

working relationship with the JDA, had not actually discharged the

functions claimed, or that the circumstances necessary to

substantiate the claimed experience were not made out.

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 05:25:21 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9794-DB] (8 of 9) [SAW-1202/2025]

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

9. This Court is of the considered opinion that the recruitment

process for the post of Assistant Town Planner stipulated a

mandatory condition of two years' work experience, and the

scrutiny of such experience was within the domain of the Expert

Committee. The limited parameters on which the impugned

conclusion has been arrived at in respect of the private respondent

pertain to the requirement of two years' experience. Though the

experience certificate was issued by a private agency, the same

could not be corroborated through the bank records. The bank

details relied upon by the learned Single Bench relate only to a

limited period of approximately six months and do not indicate

any salary transactions for the entire period for which the

experience certificate has been issued. Moreover, the JDA itself

has not confirmed that the private respondent possessed two

years' experience so as to substantiate the certificate issued by

the private agency.

10. This Court further finds that, on the face of the record, the

respondent has not been able to establish any substantive

professional relationship with the JDA or that any town planning

work was in fact assigned to her. If the experience certificate were

to be accepted as genuine, it would reasonably follow that she

received remuneration commensurate with such engagement,

which, in contemporary practice, would ordinarily be reflected

through bank transactions. However, no such bank records or

corresponding income-tax details, either of the concerned

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 05:25:21 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9794-DB] (9 of 9) [SAW-1202/2025]

company or of the individual, have been placed on record to

substantiate the claim. The draft format of the experience

certificate, placed at page 56 of the paper book, clearly stipulates

the following requirement:

"izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr vof/k esa budk dk;Z larks"ktud

jgk gSA

layXud %& uxj fu;kstu ls lacaf/kr dk;ksZsa ds dk;Z vkns'k dh

izfr] ekfld osru fcyksa dh izfr ,oa mijksDrkuqlkj lacaf/kr

nLrkost bR;kfn dh izfrA"

11. Thus, this Court also finds that the monthly bills and other

relevant documents evidencing regular and continuous

engagement were required to be produced before the Committee

in a clear and demonstrable manner. In the absence of a cogent

demonstration establishing the existence of an employer-

employee relationship and the authenticity of the claimed prior

experience, the findings arrived at by the Committee do not

warrant interference by this Court.

12. Accordingly, the special appeals (writ) are allowed and the

order and judgment dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned

Single Bench is hereby quashed and set aside. All pending

applications, if any, stand disposed of.