[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Chandra Dangi vs Mohan Lal Sukhadia University ... on 17 March, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:12647-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 643/2023
Ram Chandra Dangi S/o Shri Durga Shanker, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Village Bada Naka, Behind Kumbha Nagar, Hiran
Magri, Sector-4, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur Through Its
Registrar.
2. Registrar, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University (M.l.s.
University), Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Narendra Kumar Kumawat S/o Devkaran Kumavat, R/o
581 Rajora Ke Dhani, Village And Post Boraj, Tehsil
Mujamabad, Dudu, District Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 613/2023
Sanjeev Sen S/o Shri Sunder Lal Sen, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
17-B, Adarsh Nagar, Gairayawas Road, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur, Through Its
Registrar.
2. Registrar, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, (M.l.s.
University) Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Narendra Kumar Kumawat S/o Devkaran Kumavat, R/o
581 Rajora Ke Dhani, Village And Post Boraj, Tehsil
Mujamabad, Dudu, District Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nikhil Dungawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Punia
Mr. Manvendra Singh
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
17/03/2026
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 04:40:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12647-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-643/2023]
1. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in
pursuance of the advertisement dated 28.06.201, the recruitment
process and the examination was held for the post of LDC.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Nikhil Dungawat,
tried to persuade this Court that the examination consisted of
three phases: the written examination, the type test, and the
interview whereas the experience marks should have been
awarded at the end, thus dis-entitling the appellants from being
selected. Learned counsel for the appellants also drew attention of
this Court to paragraph-20 of the judgment dated 09.05.2023
passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.418/2016 "Ram Chandra Dangi v. Mohan Lal Sukhadia & Ors.",
No.419/2016 "Sanjeev Sen v. Mohal Lal & Ors." and
No.6113/2016 "Sunita Hinger v. State of Rajasthan & Ors."
wherein the Court has opined that ideally, it would have been
proper that the bonus marks were given at the threshold in the
first phase and not in the last phase. However, despite offering
such an opinion, the Court refused to interfere on the grounds
that the recruitment was over seven years ago, and the candidate
had already been selected, appointed, and confirmed. Mr. Nikhil
Dungawat, learned counsel for the appellants, further tried to
persuade this Court on the count that the modus operandi of
bonus marks to be given at the threshold, should be directed to be
adopted by the respondents, even without touching the selected
candidates.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
learned Single Judge has expressed opinion that bonus marks
should have been awarded in the first phase of the recruitment.
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 04:40:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12647-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-643/2023]
However, in the Division Bench Judgment dated 19.05.2023
passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ)
No.568/2022 "The Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Vishnu
Datt Saini & Ors.", the Court has dealt with the proposition and
has arrived at a considered conclusion that the weightage marks
ought to be given only at the final stage. The relevant part of the
judgment in paragraph 23 reads as under:-
"23. The next issue which arises for consideration is as to
whether the procedure evolved by the Public Service Commission
to call the candidates for interview without adding weightage
marks of academics can be held to be otherwise, unfair,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Certainly, the Public Service Commission
had two options. One which has been adopted and the other
was to first add weightage marks of academics in the marks
obtained in the screening test/objective type test and thereafter,
shortlist the candidates in the ratio of 1:3 for the purpose of
interview. The material on record, particularly the decision taken
on 24.04.2019 clearly shows that the Public Service Commission
decided that the weightage marks of academics shall be added
only after interview. That means the decision was not to take
into consideration the weightage marks of academics before
calling the candidates for interview. The decision of the Public
Service Commission to call the candidates for interview based
only on their performance in the screening test/objective type
test cannot be said to be arbitrary, irrational or oppose to fair
procedure so as to say that it would not withstand the scrutiny
on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The
said decision is based on the consideration that the candidates
would be first subjected to stages of selection comprising of
screening test/objective type test and interview on comparative
merit basis and thereafter, weightage marks for academics would
be granted. Such a preference to this mode of selection than the
other mode of selection as suggested by the respondents-writ
petitioners, is far more consistent with the principles of fair play
and rationality because the mode of selection adopted by the
Public Service Commission ensures selection based on
comparative merit on the basis of screening test/objective type
test and interview to which all the candidates are subjected to
irrespective of their background and variable standards of
examinations through which they have passed and obtained
marks in their respective academic courses."
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of
the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly arrived at the
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 04:40:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12647-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-643/2023]
conclusion that after seven years of the recruitment being
completed and the candidates having been selected, appointed
and confirmed, no interference is warranted in the present factual
matrix.
5. The present appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
24-25-charul/-
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 04:40:22 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
