[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babu Singh Meena vs Gyarsi Lal (2026:Rj-Jd:13861) on 24 March, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:13861]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 42/2024
1. Babu Singh Meena S/o Hari Singh Meena, Aged About 49
Years, V.p.o Jog Jewanpur Tehsil Weir District Bharatpur
(Raj.).
2. Hukam Singh S/o Anar Singh, Aged About 56 Years, Ward
No.26, Mandi Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Gyarsi Lal S/o Shri Mangilal, 4, Shanti Niketan Colony,
Badgaon, Bedla Link Road, Udaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Gramin Vikas
And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Udaipur.
5. Rajendra Kumar Sharma, Presently Posted On The Post Of
Addl. Vikas Adhikari Zila Parishad, Udaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 37/2023
1. State Of Raj., Through Secretary, Gramin Vikas And
Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Udaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Gyarsi Lal S/o Shri Mangilal, 4, Shanti Niketan Colony,
Badgaon, Bedla Link Road, Udaipur.
2. Rajendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma,
Presently Posted On The Post Of Addl. Vikas Adhikari, Zila
Parishad, Udaipur.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 03:37:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/03/2026 at 03:12:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13861] (2 of 4) [WRW-42/2024]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria.
Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Adv. &
Advocate General with Mr. I.R.
Choudhary, AAG assisted by
Mr. K.S. Solanki & Mr. Pawan Bharti.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora, with
Mr. Naresh Singh.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
JUDGMENT
24/03/2026
1. The present Writ Review Petitions have been preferred under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated
23.01.2023 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.14955/2021 (Gyarsi Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) whereby
the writ petition filed by the petitioner Gyarsi Lal has been
allowed.
2. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Adv. & Advocate General along with
Mr. I.R. Choudhary, learned Additional Advocate General assisted
by Mr. K.S. Solanki and Mr. Pawan Bharti, appearing on behalf of
the State, have brought to the notice of this Court the impugned
order dated 23.01.2023, sought to be reviewed, which, for the
sake of ready reference, is reproduced hereinbelow:
"Learned Dy. Government Counsel appearing for the State
submits that they have not been able to abide by the rules. It is
also contended that they have not been able to do it in
accordance with the Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Rural Development
& Panchayati Raj State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1998, which
requires the respondents to make the fresh merit-list as per the
initial merit. Rule 24 of the Rules of 1998 reads as under:-
"24.Recommendations of the Commission/
Appointing Authority: (1) The
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 03:37:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13861] (3 of 4) [WRW-42/2024]
Commission/Appointing Authority, as the case may
be, shall prepare a list of candidates, whom they/ it
consider suitable for appointment to the post or
posts concerned, arranged in order of merit and the
Commission shall forward the list to the Appointing
Authority. (2) The Commission/Appointing
Authority, as the case may be, may to the extent of
50% of the advertised vacancies, keep names of
suitable candidates on the reserve list. The names
of such candidates may, on requisition, be
recommended in the order of merit to the
Appointing Authority within six months from the
date on which the original list is forwarded by the
Commission to the Appointing Authority."
In light of the admission made by learned Dy. Government
Counsel, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are
directed make the fresh merit-list while taking into consideration
the Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Rural Development & Panchayati
Raj State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1998 strictly in
accordance with the initial merit, which has been envisaged in
the rule for making the merit-list."
3. Learned Advocate General, at the outset, submits that owing
to an inadvertent error, the learned Dy. Government Counsel
made an incorrect concession regarding the applicability of Rule
24 of the Rajasthan Rural Development & Panchayati Raj State &
Subordinate Service Rules, 1998 (for short, "the Rules of 1998")
to the present controversy, despite the said provision having no
application to the existing factual matrix. It is contended that the
dispute did not pertain to preparation or revision of the merit list,
and therefore, its resolution necessitated a detailed hearing on
merits. However, the matter came to be decided solely on the
basis of the said concession, directing reconsideration of the merit
list in terms of Rule 24 of the Rules of 1998.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 03:37:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13861] (4 of 4) [WRW-42/2024]
4. Mr. Rakesh Arora, Learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, while submitting that he has substantial arguments
on merits, fairly concedes that Rule 24 of the Rules of 1998 is not
applicable to the present case. He submits that, instead, the
matter would fall within the ambit of Rule 285 of the Rajasthan
Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996.
5. In light of the aforesaid submissions, it is evident that the
earlier order dated 23.01.2023 was passed on the basis of an
incorrect concession by the learned Dy. Government Counsel
therein, regarding the applicability of Rule 24 of the Rules of 1998.
Consequently, an error apparent on the face of the record has
occurred.
6. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon having found
that an error apparent on the face of the record exists in the
impugned order, the review petitions are allowed. The order dated
23.01.2023 is hereby recalled. The writ petition is restored to its
original number and shall be listed before the regular Bench and
to be heard strictly in accordance with law. All pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
17-18-Zeeshan
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 03:37:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
