As per case facts, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission advertised for Veterinary Officer posts, allowing final year examination candidates to apply, provided they acquired the qualification before the interview. However, ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 675/2025
CNR: RJHC010366842025 | URN: SAW / 1202U / 2025
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer - 305001
----Appellant
Versus
1. Durga Ram S/o Khema Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Naino Ki School, Siyalo Ki Dhani, Village Raichandpura,
Post Bhojasar, Tehsil Baitu, District Barmer. (Roll Number
204099).
2. Praveen Panwar S/o Kishore Kumar, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o 18E225, Chopasani Housing Board, Backside Icici
Bank, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur. (Roll Number 204097).
3. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Surendra Kumar, Aged About 37
Years, R/o V/p - Kumawas, Tehsil - Nawalgarh, District
Jhunjhunu. (Roll Number - 203065).
4. Mukesh Kumar S/o Bhoop Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/
o House No. 1581, Sector - 20, Part - 2, Hsvp, Sirsa,
District Sirsa, Hariyana. (Roll Number - 202612).
5. Sunil Kumar S/o Ram Narayan, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Gugurwalo Ka Mohalla, Chuwa, Degana, District Nagaur.
(Roll Number - 200023).
6. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.).
7. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
8. Priyanshi Yadav (Roll No. 203768) D/o Shri Arvind Yadav,
Resident Of House No. 107, Flat No. 103, Vishweshariya
Nagar, Near Triveni Chouraha Ke Pass, Radha Swami
Satsang Park Ke Samne, Jaipur - 3020005 (Mobile
9462941309)
9. Virendra Singh S/o Shri Kesharam Gurjar, Resident Of
Village Post Badagaon, Tehsil Nandauti, District Karauli -
322216 (Mobile 8107428186).
10. Shri Abhijeet Purohit (Roll No. 204010) S/o Shri Dr. Raja
Purohit, Resident Of Prayag Bhawan, Ladji Ke Bere Ke
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (2 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
Samne, Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur (Mobile 9660134102).
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 551/2025
CNR: RJHC010292682025 | URN: SAW / 852U / 2025
1. Dr. Arvind S/o Shri Subhash Dhaka, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident Of Plot No.3, Nursing Colony, Opp. High Court
Colony, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.)- 342001.
2. Dr. Yogesh Dokwal S/o Shri Kailash Sharma, Aged About
29 Years, Resident Of Near Clk Tower, Maru Street, Ward
No.30, Sikar (Raj)- 332001.
3. Dr. Warsha Choudhary D/o Shri Ramesh Chand, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of 80 Feet Road, Ward No.20,
Ganga Colony, Kherliganj, Alwar (Raj.)- 321606.
4. Dr. Kusum Meghwal D/o Shri Narayan Lal Meghwal, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of H.no.413, Singhatwara,
Zawar Mines, Udaipur (Raj.)- 313901.
5. Dr. Komal Chandel D/o Shri Lalchand Chandel, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of 247/30, Shiv Colony, Bai Ji Ki
Kothi, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Raj.) - 302004.
6. Dr. Nikita D/o Shri Pritam Singh, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident Of Jejusar, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu
(Raj.)- 333707.
7. Dr. Avinash Atal S/o Shri Daya Ram Atal, Aged About 29
Years, Resident Of F-17, Ambedkar Nagar, Alwar (Raj.)-
301001.
8. Dr. Priyanka Pahadiya D/o Shri Ram Pratap Pahadiya,
Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of 21-A, Chandra Nagar
Gujar Ghati Amer Road, Jaipur (Raj.)- 302002.
9. Dr. Karan Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Darshan Singh Gurjar,
Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of V And P Paota, Tehsil
Mahwa, District Dausa (Raj.)- 321612.
10. Dr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Rajesh Kumar
Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Near
Khandelwal Dharmshala, Bada Bazar, Baswa, Dausa (Raj.)
-303327.
11. Dr. Harendra Singh Rajoriya S/o Shri Subhash Chand,
Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Vpo Mator, Tehsil
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (3 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
Mundawar, District Alwar (Raj.)-301404.
12. Dr. Lakshmi Yadav D/o Shri Jai Prakash Yadav, Aged
About 27 Years, Resident Of Majari Khurd, Tehsil
Neemrana, District Alwar (Raj.) - 301703.
13. Dr. Shweta Sharma D/o Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma,
Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Shree Govind Nagar,
Nadi Ka Phatak, Murlipura, Jaipur (Raj.) 302039.
14. Dr. Hemant Kumar Fagana S/o Shri Mahesh Chand, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of Ajabpura, Tehsil Thanagaji,
Alwar (Raj.)- 301024.
15. Dr. Mriganka Karwa D/o Shri Ram Gopal Karwa, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Karwo Ka Bas, Tehsil
Mozamabad, District Dudu (Raj.) - 303604.
16. Dr. Karan Singh Bairwa S/o Shri Ramswroop Bairwa, Aged
About 29 Years, Resident Of Village Aniyala, Post Malarna
Chour, Tehsil Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur
(Raj.) - 322030.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary.
3. Veterinary Council Of India, A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, August
Kranti Bhawan, Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi, Through
Its Secretary.
4. Rajasthan University Of Veterinary And Animal Sciences
(Rajuvas), Vijay Bhawan, Near Pandit Deendayal
Upadhyay Circle, Bikaner, Through Its Registrar.
5. Post Gradeuate Institute Of Veterinary Education And
Research (Pgiver), Nh-11, Agra Road, Jamdoli, Jaipur,
Through Its Dean And Chairman.
6. Dr. Gajendra Singh S/o Shri Samandra Singh, Aged About
30 Years, Resident Of Village Melawas, Post Musaliya,
Tehsil Marwar Junction, District Pali (Raj.)-306103.
7. Dr. Kapil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Norang Lal Sharma,
Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Nehru Nagar, Teshil
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (4 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
Nohar, District Hanumgnarh (Raj.)
8. Dr. Nupur Pandey D/o Shri Om Prakash Pandey, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of C-181, Agrasen Nagar, Churu
(Raj.)- 331001.
9. Dr. Dashrath Khemada S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About
28 Years, Resident Of Harsolao, Tehsil Merat City, District
Nagaur (Raj.)- 331022.
10. Dr. Pushpendra Nanoma S/o Shri Manohar Lal Nanoma,
Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Talaiya, Tehsil
Bicchhiwara, District Dungarpur (Raj.)- 314801.
11. Dr. Ankit Sharma S/o Shri Gopal Lal Sharma, Aged About
26 Years, Resident Of Behind Dr. Gotwal House, Amba
Colony, Kuchaman City (Raj.)
12. Dr. Saurabh Sharma S/o Shri Hari Om Sharma, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of Bank Of Baroda Street,
Shanti Kunj Colony, Aklera, Jhalawar (Raj.)- 346033.
13. Dr. Meenu Todwal D/o Shri Narendra Kumar Todwal, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of P.no. 155, Arjun Nagar,
Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.) - 302018.
14. Dr. Mayank Sharma S/o Shri Vishwanath Sharma, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of Gokul Bhawan, Santar Road,
Dholpur (Raj.)- 328001.
15. Dr. Akshita Malav D/o Shri Raghunandan Malav, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of 19, Aanand Vihar, Ward
No.02, Adarsh Nagar, Kota Road, Baran (Raj.)-325205.
16. Dr. Koshal Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ganga Sahay Meena,
Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Village Mohanpura,
Post Chudiyawas, Tehsil Nangal, District Dausa (Raj.)-
303505.
17. Dr. Mamta Gurjar D/o Shri Ramesh Chand Gurjar, Aged
About 27 Years, Resident Of Pichani, Kotputli, Jaipur
(Raj.).
18. Dr. Nikki Choudhary D/o Shri Sahi Ram Beniwal, Aged
About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Pura Ki Dhani, Post
Derwala, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)-333001.
19. Dr. Chandra Kanwar Chawara D/o Shri Lal Singh Chawara,
Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Gyan Sadan, Near Shri
Ram Mandir, Old Industrial Area, Rani Bazar, District
Bikaner (Raj.)- 334001.
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (5 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 582/2025
CNR: RJHC010311682025 | URN: SAW / 889U / 2025
1. Dr. Pushpendra Chawla Khatik S/o Piru Lal Chawla Khatik,
Aged About 29 Years, Vpo Daulatgarh, Tehsil Asind,
District Bhilwara (Raj.).
2. Dr Kaishav Kumar Bairwa S/o Banwari Lal, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of Meena Colony, Near Defence School,
Sawai Madhopur (Raj.).
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary.
3. Veterinary Council Of India, A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, August
Kranti Bhawan, Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi, Through
Its Secretary.
4. Rajasthan University Of Veterinary And Animal Sciences
(Rajuvas), Vijay Bhawan, Near Pandit Deendayal
Upadhyay Circle, Bikaner- Through Its Registrar.
5. College Of Veterinary And Animal Sciences, Bikaner
Through Its Principal.
6. College Of Veterinary And Animal Sciences, Nawania,
Vallabh Nagar, Udaipur Through Its Principal.
7. Post Graduate Institute Of Veterinary Education And
Research (Pgiver), Nh- 11 Agra Rpad Ka, Dp O Jaipur
Through Its Dean And Chairman.
8. Aravali Veterinary College, Nh-52, Bajor, District Sikar,
Through Its Principal.
9. Dr Bal Ram Meena S/o Teeka Ram Meena, Aged About 34
Years, Resident Of Vpo Samleti, Tehsil Mahwa, District
Dausa (Raj.).
10. Dr Rahul Maurya S/o Suresh Kumar Maurya, Aged About
28 Years, Resident Of Village Jodhpura, Tehsil Kotputli,
District Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (6 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 585/2025
CNR: RJHC010305462025 | URN: SAW / 912U / 2025
1. Dr. Pooja Meena D/o Shri Ram Singh Meena, Aged About
27 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 86, Dev Nagar, Sanwali
Road, Sikar (Raj.)
2. Dr. Meenu Sharma D/o Shri Mool Chand Sharma, Aged
About 31 Years, Resident Of 68, Sundar Nagar, Opp.
Railway Station, Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Dr. Brijbhushan Tiwari S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma,
Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Kalyanpura, Sapotra,
District Karoli (Raj.).
4. Dr. Shailja D/o Sri Ravindra Kumar Singh, Aged About 29
Years, Resident Of Central Colony, Road No. 9, Vki, Jaipur
(Raj.).
5. Dr. Tripti Bhatia D/o Shri Purushottam Bhatia, Aged About
27 Years, Resident Of Indra Colony, Bikaner (Raj.).
6. Dr. Savitree Sihag D/o Shri Tolaram Siha, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of H.no.34, Gali No. 8, Ambedkar Colony,
Old Shiv Bari Road, Bikaner (Raj.).
7. Dr. Saroj Katara D/o Sri Harish Chandra Katara, Aged
About 30 Years, Resident Of Simalwara, District
Dungarpur (Raj.).
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary.
3. Veterinary Council Of India, Add - A-Wing, 2Nd Floor,
August Krantibhawan, Bhikhajicama Place, New Delhi,
Through Its Secretary
4. Rajasthan University Of Veterinary And Animal Sciences
(Rajuvas), Vijay Bhawan, Near Pandit Deendayal
Upadhyay Circle, Bikaner- Through Its Registrar.
5. College Of Veterinary And Animal Sciences, Bikaner
Through Its Principal.
6. Dr. Phool Kanwar D/o Shri Jamat Singh Sodha, Aged
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (7 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
About 31 Years, Resident Of Nmear Govt. Sr. Sec. School
Pugal District Bikaner (Raj.).
7. Dr. Pooja Gurjar D/o Shri Rajdhar Singh, Aged About 29
Years, Resident Of A-64, Shiv Vihar Colony, Khatipura,
Jaipur (Raj.).
8. Dr. Chandra Prakash S/o Shri Ramlal, Aged About 31
Years, Resident Of Village Gangapura, Post Khotiya, Tehsil
Ramgarh Shekhawati, District Sikar (Raj.).
9. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ramhet Meena, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of Jawali Ka Badh, Baswa,
Dausa (Raj.).
10. Dr. Chain Singh S/o Shri Anik Singh, Aged About 28
Years, Resident Of Bharatpur (Raj.).
11. Dr. Kirtika Panwar D/o Shri Prakash Chand Panwar, Aged
About 29 Years, Resident Of Ward No.4, Ratangarh,
District Churu (Raj.).
12. Dr. Yatindra Singh Sengar S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh
Sengar, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Sengar Sadan,
Shubh Laxmi Nagar, Gangapur City (Raj.).
13. Dr. Vishvendra Meena S/o Shri Ramavtar Meena, Aged
About 29 Years, Resident Of 01, Bagh Ka Pura, Wagla
Meena, Karauli (Raj.).
14. Dr. Satveer Mokharia S/o Shri Dayanand Mokharia, Aged
About 30 Years, Resident Of Dhayalo Ka Bas, Kari
Nawalgarh, Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
15. Dr. Darpan Meena S/o Shri Basanti Lal, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of Gatod, Sarada, Udaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 589/2025
CNR: RJHC010311572025 | URN: SAW / 939U / 2025
1. Dr. Tarachand Khatik S/o Shri Ramswaroop Khatik, Aged
About 27 Years, Vpo Borada, Sarwar, District Ajmer
(Raj.).
2. Dr Sunita Kanwar D/o Shri Anop Singh Rathore, Aged
About 31 Years, Pabusar, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu
(Raj.).
3. Dr Vimala Choudhary D/o Shri Ram Lal Choudhary, Aged
About 28 Years, Genaniyon Ka Tala, Khume Ki Beri, Dudu,
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (8 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
Dorimanna (Raj.).
4. Dr Madhu Meena D/o Shri Tejram Meena, Aged About 31
Years, Katkad, Hindaun City, Karauli.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary.
3. Veterinary Council Of India, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, August
Krantibhawan, Bhikhajicama Place, New Delhi, Through
Its Secretary.
4. Rajasthan University Of Veterinary And Animal Sciences
(Rajuvas) Vijay Bhawan, Near Pandit Deendayal
Upadhyay Circle, Bikaner- Through Its Registrar.
5. College Of Veterinary And Animal Sciences, Nawania,
Vallabh Nagar, Udaipur, Through Its Principal.
6. Aravali Veterinary College, Nh-52, Bajor, District Sikar-
Through Its Principal.
7. Dr Jayesh Dhoral S/o Shri Ridmal Ram, Aged About 29
Years, Resident Of Karola, Tehsil Sanchore, District
Sanchore (Raj.).
8. Dr Bhavna Bhardwaj D/o Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged
About 27 Years, Resident Of Punjabi Mohalla, New Road,
Deeg, Bharatpur (Raj.).
9. Dr Shailendra Singh Bansiwal S/o Shri Bhoor Singh,
Resident Of Milkipura, Dhindhora, Suroth, District Karauli
(Raj.).
10. Dr Gajendra Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Dharm Singh, Resident
Of Neotha, Tehsil Nadbai,
11. Dr Gourav Sisodiya S/o Shri Devnarayan Sisodiya,
Resident Of Jhuntha, Raipur, Pali (Raj.).
12. Dr Vikas Meena S/o Shri Mohan Lal Meena, Aged About
26 Years, Resident Of Village Banjariya, Tehsil And Post,
Kherwara, Udaiur (Raj.).
13. Dr Manak Ram S/o Shri Bhundaram, Aged About 28
Years, Resident Of Meghwalo Ka Bas, Bilawas, Sojat City,
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (9 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
Karauli (Raj.).
14. Dr Ramesh Verma S/o Shri Sitaram Verma, Aged About
29 Years, Resident Of C-17, Dadichi Nagar, Road No.5,
Vki, Jaipur (Raj.).
15. Dr Priyanka Masar D/o Shri Jeetmal Masar, Resident Of V
And P Panasichooti, Tehsi,l Garhi, District Banswara
(Raj.).
16. Dr Ritika Vyas D/o Shri Satish Prakash Sharma, Aged
About 27 Years, Resident Of 01, Shastri Nagar,
Chittorgarh (Raj.).
17. Dr Aakansha Mathur D/o Shri Dharmendra Kumar Mathur,
Resident Of 48, Vishwakarma Nagar, 80 Fee Link Road,
Near Bajrang Nagar, Kota (Raj.).,
18. Dr Suryaprakash Chouhan S/o Shri Baldev Raj Chouhan,
Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Ganesh Chowk, Sojat
City, Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 610/2025
CNR: RJHC010311602025 | URN: SAW / 981U / 2025
1. Dr. Kamlesh S/o Shri Narayan Ram, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of 190, Nakoda Nagar, Ward No. 3, District
Jodhpur (Raj.).
2. Vijendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Rampal Sharma, Aged
About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Kalyanpura, Tehsil
Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Mahipal Singh Jaitawat S/o Shri Devi Singh, Aged About
29 Years, Resident Of Village Kelwad, Tehsil Sojat, District
Pali (Raj.).
4. Mohammad Ibrahim S/o Shri Nabab Khan, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of Village Cadva Urf Jhadwa, Post
Gagriya, Tehsil Ramsar, District Barmer (Raj.).
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary.
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (10 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
3. Veterinary Council Of India, A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, August
Kranti Bhawan, Bhikhaji Lama Place, New Delhi, Through
Its Secretary.
4. Rajasthan University Of Veterinary And Animal Sciences
(Rajuvas), Vijay Bhawan, Near Pandit Deendayal
Upadhyay Circle, Bikaner- Through Its Registrar.
5. Kamdhenu University, B-1 Wing, 4Th Floor, Block 1,
Karmayogibhawan, Sector 10 A, Sector 10, Gandhinagar,
Gujarat Through Its Registrar
6. Dileep Singh S/o Shri Hindu Singh, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident Of Village Ketukalan, Tehsil, Sekhala, District
Jodhpur (Raj.).
7. Dilkush Meena, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Near
Govt. Secondary School, Koondia, District Baran (Raj.).
8. Bhawana Kanwar D/o Shri Samder Singh, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of Village-Melawas, Tehsil Marwar
Junction, District Pall (Raj.).
9. Kamlesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Suresh Chand, Aged
About 29 Years, Resident Of 3-G-53, Mahaveer Nagar Ext.
District Kota (Raj.).
10. Nanaji Deshmukh Veterinary Science University, Near
Empire Square, South Civil Lines, Jabalpur, Madhya
Pradesh Through Its Registrar.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 611/2025
CNR: RJHC010304502025 | URN: SAW / 982U / 2025
Dr. Dalu Ram Meena S/o Shri Bhori Lal Meena, Aged About 30
Years, Village Birajpura, Post Todabhata, Tehsil Bassi, District
Jaipur (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary.
3. Veterinary Council Of India, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, August
Krantibhawan, Bhikhajicama Place, New Delhi, Through
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (11 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
Its Secretary.
4. Nanaji Deshmukh Veterinary Science University, Near
Empire Square, South Civil Lines, Jabalpur, Madhya
Pradesh Through Its Registrar.
5. Kamdhenu University, B-1 Wing, 4Th Floor, Block 1
Karmyogi Bhawan, Sector 10A, Sector 10, Gandhinagar,
Gujara Through Its Registrar.
6. Dr Rohit Sankhla S/o Shri Ch Inna Ram Sankhla, Aged
About 35 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 123, Shanti Priya
Nagar Extension, Near Thar Dry Port, District Jodhpur
(Raj.).
7. Dr Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Purakh Singh, Aged About 31
Years, Resident Of Vpo Kaludi, Tehsil, Pachpadra, District
Barmer (Raj.).
8. Sunita Rolania D/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident Of Ward No.14, Gidawala, Shrimadhopur, District
Sikar (Raj.).
----Respondents
CONNECTED WITH
(AT JAIPUR BENCH)
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 126/2025
CNR: RJHC020156612025 | URN: SAW / 446U / 2025
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer-305001
----Appellant
Versus
1. Shalendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Mool Chand Yadav S/o
Mool Chand Yadav, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of
Vpo Banar, Tehsil And District Kotputli, District Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Priyarishi Yadav (Roll No. 203768), D/o Shri Arvind
Yadav, Resident House No. 107, Flat No. 103,
Vishweshariya Nagar, Near Triveni Chouraha Ke Pass,
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (12 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
Radha Swami Satsarig Park Ke Samne, Jaipur - 302005
5. Virendra Singh S/o Shri Keshram Gurjar, Resident Of
Village Post Badagaon, Tehsil Nandauti, District Karauli-
322216
6. Shri Abhijeet Purohit (Roll No. 204010) S/o Shri Dr. Raja
Purohit, Resident Of Prayag Bhawan, Ladji Ke Bere Ke
Samne, Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 138/2025
CNR: RJHC020176002025 | URN: SAW / 468U / 2025
1. Gireesh Joshi S/o Shri Jitendra Kumar Joshi, R/o Plot
No. 80, Nalanda Vihar, Maharani Farm, Dugapura, Jaipur
District Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Mrinal Verma S/o Sh. Yogeshwar, Registration No- Rsvc/
5798/2020, Address-I-E-22, New Housing Board, Khoda
Ganesh Ji Road, Madangang- Kisshangarh, District-
Ajmer, (Raj.) Pin-305801
----Appellants
Versus
1. Amar Singh Saini S/o Shri Babu Lal Saini, Aged About
31 Years, R/o 700, Dhani Sheraala, Tehsil Khetri, Village
Babai, District Jhujhunu.
2. Kapil Kumar Godara S/o Shri Nand Lal, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Village And Post Dhandhan,
Sikar.
3. Hitesh Kumar S/o Shri Tara Chand Poonia, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Vpo Nua, Poonia Market Nua, District
Jhunjhunu.
4. Raj Kumar Saran S/o Shri Sukha Ram Saran, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o Village And Post Daudsar, Tehsil
Ratangarh, District Churu.
5. Kamal Kishore Jakhar S/o Shri Manga Ram Jakhar, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 07, Hanuman Nagar,
Khivtana, Post Dotina, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur.
6. Dharmveer Singh S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Village Badki Dhani, Post And Tehsil
Gudagaudji, District Jhunjhunu.
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (13 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
7. Vikas Kumar S/o Shri Shishupal Singh, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Vpo Kaseru, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District
Jhunjhunu.
8. Pooja Nimber D/o Shri Sitaram Nimber, Aged About 32
Years, R/o 964, Sankhwas, Po Sankhwas, District
Nagaur- 341028 Nagaur.
9. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.).
10. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
11. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer.
12. Tara Chand S/o Sh. Narayan Ram, Dob-11.06.1993
Registration No.-Rsvc/5751,2020, Address- Village-
Bajiyasar, Post- Kitalsar, Tehsil- Degana, District-
Nagaur, (Rajasthan) Pin- 341503.
13. Santosh D/o Sh. Ganesh Ram, Dob- 01.07.1994
Registration No.- Rsvc/5730/2020, Address- Village-
Khokhara, Tehsil- Sojat, District- Pali, (Rajasthan) Pin-
306306.
14. Sachin Patidar S/o Sh. Manoj Kumar Patidar, Dob-
15.11.1995 Registration No.- Rsvc/5818/2021, Address-
Mukam, Post- Dovra, Tehsil- Dungarpur, District-
Dungarpur (Rajasthan) Pin-314036
15. Himanshu Saini D/o Sh. Anand Saini, Dob- 07.05.1995
Registration No.- Rsvc/5692/2020/, Address- Near
Goinka School, Ward No. 59. Tehsil- Churu, District-
Churu (Rajasthan) Pin-331001.
16. Jayanu Parmar D/o Sh. Rajesh Parmar, Dob-09.05.1996
Registration No.- Rsvc/5693/2020, Address-Vpo-
Mahuwal Post- Sarera, Tehsil- Kherwara, District-
Udaipur (Rajasthan) Pin-313804.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 173/2025
CNR: RJHC020186362025 | URN: SAW / 520U / 2025
1. Sitaram S/o Bhagirath, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village
Surajansar, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar,
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (14 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
Pincode-335804
2. Kalpana D/o Ramji Lal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward
No. 10, Vpo Parlika, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh,
Pincode-335504
----Appellants
Versus
1. Shalendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Mool Chand Yadav,
Aged About 36 Years, R/o Vpo Banar, Tehsil And District
Kotputli, District Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer
5. Priyanshi Yadav (Roll No. 203768) D/o Shri Arvind
Yadav, Resident House No. 107, Flat No. 103,
Vishweshariya Nagar, Near Triveni Chouraha Ke Pass,
Radha Swami Satsang Park Ke Samne, Jaipur- 302005
6. Virendra Singh S/o Shri Keshram Gurjar, R/o Village And
Post Badagaon, Tehsil Nandauti, District Karauli- 322216
7. Shri Abhijeet Purohit (Roll No. 204010) S/o Shri Dr. Raja
Purohit, R/o Prayag Bhawan, Ladji Ke Bere Ke Samne,
Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 174/2025
CNR: RJHC020195232025 | URN: SAW / 521U / 2025
1. Santosh D/o Shri Ganesh Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/
o Village Khokhara Tehsil Sojat District Pali, Rajasthan.
2. Sachin Patidar S/o Shri Manoj Kumar Patidar, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Mukam, Post Dovra, Tehsil
Dungarpur, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (15 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
Animal Husbandry Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer.
4. Tarachand S/o Shri Narayan Ram, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Village Bajiyasar, Post Kitalsar, Tehsil Degana,
District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
5. Mrinal Verma S/o Shri Yogeshwar, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o I-E-22, New Housing Road, Khoda Ganesh Ji Road,
Madanganj, Kisshangarh, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
6. Himanshu Saini S/o Shri Anand Saini, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Near Goinka School, Ward No. 59, Tehsil
Churu, District Churu, Rajasthan.
7. Jayanu Parmar D/o Shri Rajesh Parmar, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Vpo Mahuwal, Post Sarera, Tehsil Kherwara,
District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
8. Virendra Singh S/o Shri Govind Singh, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Olagarh, Kheri, Radan Sikar Rajasthan, Roll
No. 203384.
9. Kiran Kumari Khichar C/o Mukesh Haritwal, Aged About
35 Years, R/o Ward No.9 Haritwalo Ki Dhani, Dheengpur,
Sikar Rajasthan, Roll No. 203573.
10. Anuj Kumar S/o Shri Ram Niwas, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Dheengi Churu, Dhingi Rajasthan, Roll No. 201076.
11. Amit Kumar Lavania S/o Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o C.76, Rajendra Prasad Nagar, Badar
Vas, Ward No.19, Jaipur Rajasthan, Roll No.203410
12. Yash Bhargava S/o Shri Dr. Sandeep Bhargava, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o 1262/3, A- Deeg Gali, Kachchi
Sadak, Mathura, Uttar-Pradesh, Roll No. 202687.
13. Rahul Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Satish Kumar Sharma,
Aged About 31 Years, R/o Sinchai Vibhag Ke Saamne,
Kamala Colony, Dhaulpur, Rajasthan, Roll No.200605.
14. Puneet Jain S/o Shri Paras Kumar Jain, Aged About 31
Years, R/o C-79-80, Malviya Nagar, Alwar, Rajasthan,
Roll No.203200.
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (16 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
15. Abhishek Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Manoj Kumar Pandey,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ward No.4, Shakti Nagar
Purani, Abadi, Ganganagar, Rajasthan, Roll No.201337.
16. Ashok Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Khuma Ram
Choudhary, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Gang Gong Jalor,
Rajasthan, Roll No.204157.
17. Arvind Beniwal S/o Shri Amrit Singh Beniwal, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Mandawara, Hindaun City, Karauli,
Rajasthan, Roll No.200631.
18. Pawan Kumar Katewa S/o Shri Chand Singh, Aged About
36 Years, R/o Alipur, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Roll
No.203053.
19. Amit Kumar S/o Shri Ashok Kumar, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Ondela Road, Dholpur, Dhaulpur, Rajasthan,
Roll No.200600.
20. Manvendra Singh S/o Bhawan Singh, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Belara, Kalan, Bharatpur Rajasthan, Roll
No.200504.
21. Karamveer Choudhary S/o Shri Ramniwas Choudhary,
Aged About 30 Years, R/o Durana, Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan, Roll No.203036.
22. Pankaj Beniwal S/o Shri Nemichand Beniwal, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Village Kua Stand, Raghunathpura,
Derwala, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Roll No.202795.
23. Kartika Nagar D/o Amar Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
B-7, Road No.1, Krishana Nagar, Police Line, Nayapura,
Kota Rajasthan, Roll No.204532.
24. Rajveer Singh S/o Shri Hari Narayan Jat, R/o 117,
Gandhi Chowk, Gram Bobadi The- Jamwa Ramgarh,
Jaipur, Vtc- Bobari, Sub District Jamwaramgarh, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan, Roll No.203320.
25. Manaswini Sharma D/o Raghuveer Sharma, Aged About
35 Years, R/o N-H, The Chomu Kalu Ka Bas Colony,
Govindgarh, Jaipur Rajasthan, Roll No.203369.
26. Liladhar S/o Lal Chand, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward
No. 26, Gali No.3, Surya Nagar, Hanumangarh, Town 8
Ssw, Kohlan, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan, Roll No.201290.
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (17 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
27. Anurag S/o Shri Ramawtar, Aged About 34 Years,
Nawalgarh Road, Kisan Colony, Sikar, Rajasthan, Roll
No.203622.
28. Asif Mohamad S/o Asfak Mohamad, Aged About 40
Years, R/o 2-C-56, Housing Board Senthi, Chittaurgarh,
Rajasthan, Roll No.204552.
29. Vinod Yadav S/o Shri Shiv Ram Yadav, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Ward No-19, Bhomaka Ki Dhani, Chomu,
Tripolia Chomu, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Roll No.203297.
30. Soniya Damor C/o Yatish Bamniya, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Village Malwasa, Post Sangod, District
Banswara, Rajasthan , Roll No.205059.
31. Komal Khichar C/o Neeraj Periwal, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o A-206, Vatika Enclave, Jaipur Road, Bikaner, Po-
Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan, Roll No.202872.
32. Ayush Pareek C/o Naresh Sharma, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Gully No. 5, Near Vande Matram Chowk,
Radhakishanpura, Vtc- Radha Kishanpura (Rural) Po
Sikar, Sub District Sikar, Rajasthan , Roll No.203680.
33. Sunita Kumari W/o Vishal Kumar, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Ghoriwara Kalan, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Roll No.
203070.
34. Rohit Kumar Tiwari S/o Ramavatar Sharma, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Sabdawali, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa,
Rajasthan , Roll No. 203411
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 175/2025
CNR: RJHC020195202025 | URN: SAW / 522U / 2025
1. Mukani Kumari D/o Shankar Lal, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o House No. 236, Bhawan Desar, District Churu,
Rajasthan-331802.
2. Ankit Kumar S/o Parmeshwar Lal Jangir, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Jiwa Ka Bas, Kharkhari, Post
Office Kharkhari, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-333011.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Animal Husbandry, Secretariat, Jaipur.
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (18 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
2. Rajasthan Public Services Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer.
3. Ganendra Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 35
Years, R/o 243-244, Madhav Nagar, Opp. Durgapura
Railway Station, Durgapura Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Himanshu Raj Singh Chunwawat S/o Shri Mahipal Singh
Chundawat, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Gara
Ekling Ji, Tehsil Aspur, Gram Panchayat Khera Aspur,
Dungarpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 176/2025
CNR: RJHC020195302025 | URN: SAW / 523U / 2025
1. Mukani Kumari D/o Shankar Lal, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o House No. 236, Bhawan Desar, District Churu,
Rajasthan - 331802.
2. Ankit Kumar S/o Parmeshwar Lal Jangir, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Jiwa Ka Bas, Kharkhari, Post
Office Kharkhari, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan -
333011.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Anil Husbandry Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer.
4. Priyanshi Yadav (Roll No. 203768) D/o Shri Arvind
Yadav, Resident House No. 107, Flat No. 103,
Vishweshariya Nagar, Near Triveni Chouraha Ke Pass,
Radha Swami Satsang Park Ke Samne, Jaipur- 302005.
5. Virendra Singh S/o Shri Keshram Gurjar, R/o Village And
Post Badagaon, Tehsil Nandauti, District Karauli- 322216
6. Shri Abhijeet Purohit (Roll No. 204010) S/o Shri D. Raja
Purohit, R/o Prayag Bhawan, Ladji Ke Bere Ke Samne,
Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur.
7. Shalendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Mool Hand Yadav, Aged
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (19 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
About 36 Years, R/o Vpo Banar, Tehsil And District
Kotputli, District Jaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 193/2025
CNR: RJHC020186072025 | URN: SAW / 542U / 2025
1. Himanshu Saini S/o Shri Anand Saini, Aged About 29
Years, Resident Of Near Goinka School, Ward No. 59,
Tehsil Churu, District Churu, Rajasthan.
2. Jayanu Parmar Daughter Of Shri Rajesh Parmar, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of Vpo Mahuwal, Post Sarera,
Tehsil Kherwara, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Virendra Singh S/o Shri Govind Singh, Aged About 40
Years, Resident Of Olagarh, Kheri, Radan Sikar,
Rajasthan, Roll No. 203384.
2. Kiran Kumari Khichar C/o Mukesh Haritwal, Aged About
35 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 9, Haritwalo Ki Dhani,
Dheengpur, Sikar, Rajasthan, Roll No. 203573.
3. Anju Kumar Son Of Shri Ram Niwas, Aged About 32
Years, Resident Of Dheengi Churu, Dhingi Rajasthan,
Roll No. 201076
4. Amit Kumar Lavania Son Of Shri Jagdish Prasad
Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of C.76,
Rajendra Prasad Nagar, Badar Vas, Ward No. 19, Jaipur,
Rajasthan, Roll No. 203410
5. Yash Bhargava Son Of Shri Dr. Sandeep Bhargava, Aged
About 29 Years, Resident Of 1262/3, A- Deeg Gali,
Kachchi Sadak, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, Roll No. 202687
6. Rahul Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Satish Kumar Sharma,
Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Sinchai Vibhag Ke
Saamne, Kamala Colony, Dhaulpur, Rajasthan, Roll No.
200605
7. Puneet Jain Son Of Shri Paras Kumar Jain, Aged About
31 Years, Resident Of C-79-80, Malviya Nagar, Alwar,
Rajasthan, Roll No. 203200
8. Abhishek Kumar Pandey Son Of Shri Manoj Kumar
Pandey, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 4,
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (20 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
Shakti Nagar, Purani Abadi, Ganganagar, Rajasthan, Roll
No. 201337
9. Ashok Kumar Choudhary Son Of Shri Khuma Ram
Choudhary, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Gang
Gong Jalor, Rajasthan, Roll No. 204157
10. Arvind Beniwal Son Of Shri Amrit Singh Beniwal, Aged
About 32 Years, Resident Of Mandawara, Hindaun City,
Karauli, Rajasthan, Roll No. 200631
11. Pawan Kumar Katewa Son Of Shri Chand Singh, Aged
About 36 Years, Resident Of Alipur, Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan, Roll No. 203053
12. Amit Kumar Son Of Shri Ashok Kumar, Aged About 31
Years, Resident Of Ondela Road, Dholpur, Dhaulpur,
Rajasthan, Roll No. 200600
13. Manvendra Singh Son Of Shri Bhawan Singh, Aged
About 33 Years, Resident Of Belara, Kalan, Bharatpur,
Rajasthan, Roll No. 200504.
14. Karamveer Choudhary Son Of Shri Ramniwas
Choudhary, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Durana,
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Roll No. 203036
15. Pankaj Beniwal Son Of Shri Nemichand Beniwal, Aged
About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Kua Stand,
Raghunathpura, Derwala, Jhunjhunu, Roll No. 202795
16. Kartika Nagar Daughter Of Shri Amar Lal, Aged About
32 Years, Resident Of B-7, Road No. 1, Krishna Nagar,
Police Line, Nayapura, Kota, Rajasthan, Roll No. 204532
17. Rajveer Singh Son Of Shri Hari Narayan Jat, Aged About
31 Years, Resident Of 117, Gandhi Chowk, Gram Bobadi
The-Jamwa Ramgarh, Jaipur, Vtc-Bobari, Sub District
Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan, Roll No.
203320
18. Manaswini Sharma Daughter Of Shri Raghuveer Sharma,
Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of N-H, The Chomu Kalu
Ka Bas Colony, Govindgarh, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Roll No.
203369
19. Liladhar Son Of Shri Lal Chand, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 26, Gali No. 3, Surya Nagar,
Hanumangarh, Town 8Ssw, Kohlan, Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan, Roll No. 201290
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (21 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
20. Anurag Son Of Shri Ramawtar, Aged About 34 Years,
Resident Of Nawalgarh Road, Kisan Colony, Sikar,
Rajasthan, Roll No. 203622
21. Asif Mohammad Son Of Shri Asfak Mohamad, Aged
About 40 Years, Resident Of 2-C-56, Housing Board
Senthi, Chittaurgarh, Rajasthan, Roll No. 204552
22. Vinod Yadav Son Of Shri Shiv Ram Yadav, Aged About
31 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 19, Bhomaka Ki Dhani,
Chomu, Tripolia Chomu, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Roll No.
203297
23. Soniya Damor C/o Shri Yatish Bamniya, Aged About 33
Years, Resident Of Village Malwasa, Post Sangod,
District Banswara, Rajasthan, Roll No. 205059
24. Komal Khichar Son Of Shri Neeraj Periwal, Aged About
31 Years, Resident Of A-206, Vatika Enclave, Jaipur
Road, Bikaner, Po Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan,
Roll No. 202872
25. Ayush Pareek Care Of Shri Naresh Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, Resident Of Gully No. 5, Near Vande Matram
Chowk, Radhakishanpura, Vtc- Radha Kishanpura
(Rural) Po Sikar, Sub District Sikar, Rajasthan, Roll No.
203680
26. Sunita Kumari Wife Of Shri Vishal Kumar, Aged About 34
Years, Resident Of Ghoriwara Kalan, Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan, Roll No. 203070
27. Rohit Kumar Tiwari Son Of Shri Ramavatar Sharma,
Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Sabdawali, Tehsil
Baswa, District Dausa, Rajathan, Roll No. 203411.
28. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.)
29. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
30. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer.
31. Tarachand Son Of Shri Nrayan Ram, Aged About 31
Years, Resident Of Village Bajiyasar, Post Kitalsar, Tehsil
Degana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (22 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
32. Santosh Daughter Of Shri Ganesh Ram, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of Village Khokhara, Tehsil Sojat,
District Pali, Rajasthan.
33. Mrinal Verma Son Of Shri Yogeshwar, Aged About 28
Years, Resident Of I-E-22, New Housing Road, Khoda
Ganesh Ji Road, Madanganj, Kisshangarh, District Ajmer,
Rajasthan.
34. Sachin Patidar Son Of Shri Manoj Kumar Patidar, Aged
About 29 Years, Resident Of Mukam Post Dovra, Tehsil
Dungarpur, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 194/2025
CNR: RJHC020195282025 | URN: SAW / 543U / 2025
1. Santosh D/o Sh. Ganesh Ram, Aged About 30 Years,
Registration No.- Rsvc/5730/2020, Address- Village-
Khokhara, Tehsil-Sojat, District- Pali, (Rajasthan) Pin-
306306.
2. Sachin Patidar S/o Sh. Manoj Kumar Patidar,
Registration No.-Rsvc/5818/2021, Address- Mukam,
Post-Dovra, Tehsil-Dungarpur, District Dungarpur
(Rajasthan) Pin- 314036.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer.
4. Tara Chand S/o Sh. Narayan Ram, Registration No.-
Rsvc/5751/2020, Address- Village- Bajiyasar, Post-
Kitalsar, Tehsil- Degana, District- Nagaur, (Rajasthan)
Pin-341503
5. Mrinal Verma S/o Sh. Yogeshwar, Registration No.- Rsvc/
5798/2020, Address - I-E-22, New Housing Board,
Khoda Ganesh Ji Road, Madangang- Kisshangarh,
District- Ajmer, (Rajasthan) Pin-305801
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (23 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
6. Himanshu Saini D/o Sh. Anand Saini, Registration No.-
Rsvc/5692/2020, Address- Near Goinka School, Ward
No. 59, Tehsil- Churu, District - Churu (Rajasthan) Pin-
331001
7. Jayanu Parmar D/o Sh. Rajesh Parmar, Registration No.-
Rsvc/5693/2020, Address- Vpo - Mahuwal, Post- Sarera,
Tehsil- Kherwara, District- Udaipur (Rajasthan) Pin-
313804
8. Gireesh Joshi S/o Shri Jitendra Kumar Joshi, R/o Plot
No. 80, Nalanda Vihar, Maharani Farm, Dugapura, Jaipur
District Jaipur (Raj.)
9. Amar Singh Saini S/o Shri Babu Lal Saini, Aged About
31 Years, R/o 700, Dhani Sheraala, Tehsil Khetri, Village
Babai, District Jhujhunu
10. Kapil Kumar Godara S/o Shri Nand Lal, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Village And Post Dhandhan,
Sikar
11. Hitesh Kumar S/o Shri Tara Chand Poonia, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Vpo Nua, Poonia Market Nua, District
Jhunjhunu
12. Raj Kumar Saran S/o Shri Sukha Ram Saran, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o Village And Post Daudsar, Tehsil
Ratangarh, District Churu
13. Kamal Kishore Jakhar S/o Shri Manga Ram Jakhar, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 07, Hanuman Nagar,
Khivtana, Post Dotina, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur
14. Dharmveer Singh S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Village Badki Dhani, Post And Tehsil
Gudagaudji, District Jhunjhunu
15. Vikas Kumar S/o Shri Shishupal Singh, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Vpo Kaseru, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District
Jhunjhunu
16. Pooja Nimber D/o Shri Sitaram Nimber, Aged About 32
Years, R/o 964, Sankhwas, Po Sankhwas, District
Nagaur-341028 Nagaur
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 239/2025
CNR: RJHC020223132025 | URN: SAW / 708U / 2025
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (24 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
Tara Chand S/o Sh. Narayan, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village
Bajiyasar, Post- Kitalsar, Tehsil-Degana, District Nagaur
(Rajasthan) Pincode - 341503
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer
4. Santosh D/o Sh. Ganesh Ram, Dob - 01.07.1994
Registration No. - Rsvc/5730/2020, Address- Village-
Khokhara, Tehsil- Sojat, District- Pali, (Rajasthan) Pin-
306306
5. Mrinal Verma S/o Sh. Yogeshwar, D.o.b. -05.03.1996
Registration No.- Rsvc/5798/2020, Address - I-E-22,
New Housing Board, Khoda Ganesh Ji Road,
Madangang- Kisshangarh, District- Ajmer, (Rajasthan)
Pin-305801
6. Sachin Patidar S/o Sh. Manoj Kumar Patidar, D.o.b.-
15.11.1995 Registration No.- Rsvc/5818/2021, Address-
Mukam, Post- Dovra, Tehsil- Dungarpur, District.-
Dungarpur (Rajasthan) Pin- 314036
7. Himanshu Saini D/o Sh. Anand Saini, D.o.b. -
07.05.1995 Registration No.- Rsvc/5692/2020, Address-
Neargoinka School, Ward No. 59, Tehsil- Churu, District
- Churu (Rajasthan) Pin- 331001
8. Jayanu Parmar D/o Sh. Rajesh Parmar, D.o.b. -
09.05.1996 Registration No.- Rsvc/5693/2020, Address-
Vpo- Mahuwal, Post- Sarera, Tehsil- Kherwara, District-
Udaipur (Rajasthan) Pin- 313804
9. Giresh Joshi S/o Shri Jitendra Kumar Joshi, R/o Plot No.
80, Nalanda Vihar, Maharani Farm, Dugapura, Jaipur
District Jaipur (Raj.
10. Amar Singh Saini S/o Shri Babu Lal Saini, Aged About
31 Years, R/o 700, Dhani Sheraala, Tehsil Khetri, Village
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (25 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
Babai, District Jhujhunu
11. Kapil Kumar Godara S/o Shri Nand Lal, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Ward No. 10,villageandpostdhandhan, Sikar
12. Hitesh Kumars/oshri Tarachandpoonia, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Vpo Nua, Poonia Market Nua, District
Jhunjhunu
13. Raj Kumar Saran S/o Shri Sukha Ram Saran, Aged
About 37 Years,
R/ovillageandpostdaudsar,tehsilratangarh, District Churu
14. Kamal Kishore Jakhar S/o Shri Manga Ram Jakhar, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 07, Hanuman Nagar,
Khivtana, Post Dotina, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur
15. Dharmveer Singh S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Village Badki Dhani, Post And Tehsil
Gudagaudji, District Jhunjhunu
16. Vikas Kumar S/o Shri Shishupal Singh, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Vpo Kaseru, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District
Jhunjhunu
17. Pooja Nimber D/o Shri Sitaram Nimber, Aged About 32
Years, R/o 964, Sankhwas, Po Sankhwas, District
Nagaur-341028 Nagaur
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 288/2025
CNR: RJHC020267142025 | URN: SAW / 804U / 2025
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer- 305001
----Appellant
Versus
1. Dr. Omprakash Nagar S/o Shri Daulat Ram Nagar, Aged
About 40 Years, Resident Of Village Rajpura, Tehsil
Sunel, Post Salotiya, District Jhalawar
2. Dr. Mahesh Nehara S/o Shri Sita Ram Kumawat, Aged
About 37 Years, Resident Of 491, Rajvi Vihar,
Heerapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur
3. Narendra Kumar Kumawat S/o Shri Ram Narayan
Rajora, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Pipli Wali
Dhani, Kalwar Road, Hingonia, Jaipur
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (26 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.)
5. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
6. Priyanshi Yadav (Roll No. 203768) D/o Shri Arvind
Yadav, Resident House No. 107, Flat No. 103,
Vishweshariya Nagar, Near Triveni Chouraha Ke Pass,
Radha Swami Satsang Park Ke Samne, Jaipur- 302005
7. Virendra Singh S/o Shri Keshram Gurjar, Resident Of
Village Post Badagaon, Tehsil Nandauti, District Karauli-
322216
8. Shri Abhijeet Purohit (Roll No. 204010) S/o Shri Dr. Raja
Purohit, Resident Of Prayag Bhawan, Ladji Ke Bere Ke
Samne, Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 289/2025
CNR: RJHC020267232025 | URN: SAW / 812U / 2025
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer - 305001
----Appellant
Versus
1. Virendra Singh S/o Shri Govind Singh, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Olagarh, Kheri, Radan Sikar Rajasthan, Roll
No. 203384
2. Kiran Kumari Khichar C/o Mukesh Haritwal, Aged About
35 Years, R/o Ward No.9 Haritwalo Ki Dhani, Dheengpur,
Sikar Rajasthan, Roll No. 203573.
3. Anuj Kumar S/o Shri Ram Niwas, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Dheengi Churu, Dhingi Rajasthan, Roll No. 201076.
4. Amit Kumar Lavania S/o Jagdish Prasad Sharma, R/o
C.76, Rajendra Prasad Nagar, Badar Vas, Ward No.19,
Jaipur Rajasthan, Roll No.203410.
5. Yash Bhargava S/o Shri Dr. Sandeep Bhargava, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o 1262/3, A- Deeg Gali, Kachchi
Sadak, Mathura, Uttar-Pradesh, Roll No. 202687
6. Rahul Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Satish Kumar Sharma,
Aged About 31 Years, R/o Sinchai Vibhag Ke Saamne,
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (27 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
Kamala Colony, Dhaulpur, Rajasthan, Roll No.200605
7. Puneet Jain S/o Shri Paras Kumar Jain, Aged About 31
Years, R/o C-79-80, Malviya Nagar, Alwar, Rajasthan,
Roll No.203200
8. Abhishek Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Manoj Kumar Pandey,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ward No.4, Shakti Nagar
Purani, Abadi, Ganganagar Rajasthan, Roll No.201337
9. Ashok Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Khuma Ram
Choudhary, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Gang Gong Jalor,
Rajasthan, Roll No. 204157
10. Arvind Beniwal S/o Shri Amrit Singh Beniwal, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Mandawara, Hindaun City, Karauli,
Rajasthan, Roll No.200631
11. Pawan Kumar Katewa S/o Shri Chand Singh, Aged About
36 Years, R/o Of Alipur, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Roll No.
203053
12. Amit Kumar S/o Shri Ashok Kumar, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Ondela Road, Dholpur, Dhaulpur, Rajasthan,
Roll No.200600
13. Manvendra Singh S/o Bhawan Singh, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Belara, Kalan, Bharatpur Rajasthan, Roll No.
200504
14. Karamveer Choudhary S/o Shri Ramniwas Choudhary,
Aged About 30 Years, R/o Durana, Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan, Roll No.203036
15. Pankaj Beniwal S/o Shri Nemichand Beniwal, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Village Kua Stand, Raghunathpura,
Derwala, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Roll No.202795
16. Kartika Nagar D/o Amar Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
B-7, Road No.1, Krishana Nagar, Police Line, Nayapura,
Kota Rajasthan, Roll No. 204532
17. Rajveer Singh S/o Shri Hari Narayan Jat, Aged About 31
Years, R/o 117, Gandhi Chowk, Gram Bobadi The-
Jamwa Ramgarh, Jaipur, Vtc- Bobari, Sub District
Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan, Roll
No.203320
18. Manaswini Sharma D/o Raghuveer Sharma, Aged About
35 Years, R/o N-H, The Chomu Kalu Ka Bas Colony,
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (28 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
Govindgarh, Jaipur Rajasthan, Roll No. 203369
19. Liladhar S/o Lal Chand, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward
No. 26, Gali No.3, Surya Nagar, Hanumangarh, Town 8
Ssw, Kohlan, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan, Roll No.201290
20. Anurag S/o Shri Ramawtar, Aged About 34 Years,
Nawalgarh Road, Kisan Colony, Sikar, Rajasthan, Roll
No.203622
21. Asif Mohamad S/o Asfak Mohamad, Aged About 40
Years, R/o 2-C-56, Housing Board Senthi, Chittarugarh,
Rajasthan, Roll No.204552
22. Vinod Yadav S/o Shri Shiv Ram Yadav, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Ward No-19, Bhomaka Ki Dhani, Chomu,
Tripolia Chomu, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Roll No.203297
23. Soniya Damor C/o Yatish Bamniya, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Village Malwasa, Post Sangod, District
Banswara, Rajasthan, Roll No.205059
24. Komal Khichar C/o Neeraj Periwal, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o A-206, Vatika Enclave, Jaipur Road, Bikaner, Po-
Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan, Roll No.202872
25. Ayush Pareek C/o Naresh Sharma, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Gully No. 5, Near Vande Matram Chowk,
Radhakishanpura, Vtc- Radha Kishanpura (Rural) Po
Sikar, Sub District Sikar, Rajasthan Roll No.203680
26. Sunita Kumari W/o Vishal Kumar, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Ghoriwara Kalan, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Roll No.
203070
27. Rohit Kumar Tiwari S/o Ramavatar Sharma, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Sabdawali, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa,
Rajasthan, Roll No. 203411
28. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry Department, Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.) Government
29. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
30. Tarachand S/o Shri Narayan Ram, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Village Bajiyasar, Post Kitalsar, Tehsil Degana,
District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
31. Santosh D/o Shri Ganesh Ram, Aged About 30 Years,
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (29 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
R/o Village Khokhara Tehsil Sojat District Pali,
Rajasthan.
32. Mrinal Verma S/o Shri Yogeshwar, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o I-E-22, New Housing Road, Khoda Ganesh Ji Road,
Madanganj, Kisshangarh, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
33. Sachin Patidar S/o Shri Manoj Kumar Patidar, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Mukam, Post Dovra, Tehsil
Dungarpur, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
34. Himanshu Saini S/o Shri Anand Saini, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Near Goinka School, Ward No. 59, Tehsil
Churu, District Churu, Rajasthan.
35. Jayanu Parmar D/o Shri Rajesh Parmar, Aged About 28
Years, R/o V.p.o. Mahuwal, Post Sarera, Tehsil Kherwara,
District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 294/2025
CNR: RJHC020267282025 | URN: SAW / 821U / 2025
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer - 305001
----Appellant
Versus
1. Amar Singh Saini S/o Shri Babu Lal Saini, Aged About
31 Years, Resident Of 700, Dhani Sheraala, Tehsil
Khetri, Village Babai, District Jhunjhunu
2. Kapil Kumar Godara S/o Shri Nand Lal, Aged About 28
Years, Resident Of Ward No. 10, Village And Post
Dhandhan, Sikar
3. Hitesh Kumar S/o Shri Tara Chand Poonia, Aged About
29 Years, Resident Of Vpo Nua, Poonia Market Nua,
District Jhunjhunu
4. Raj Kumar Saran S/o Shri Sukha Ram Saran, Aged
About 37 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Daudsar,
Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu
5. Kamal Kishore Jakhar S/o Shri Manga Ram Jakhar, Aged
About 35 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 07, Hanuman
Nagar, Khivtana, Post Dotina, Tehsil Degana, District
Nagaur.
6. Dharmveer Singh S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 39
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (30 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
Years, Resident Of Village Badki Dhani, Post And Tehsil
Gudagaudji, District Jhunjhunu
7. Vikas Kumar S/o Shri Shishupal Singh, Aged About 33
Years, Resident Of Vpo Kaseru, Tehsil Nawalgarh,
District Jhunjhunu
8. Pooja Nimber D/o Shri Sitaram Nimber, Aged About 32
Years, Resident Of 964, Sankhwas, Po Sankhwas, Distt.
Nagaur-341028 Nagaur.
9. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.)
10. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
11. Tara Chand S/o Sh. Narayan Ram, D.o.b-11.06.1993
Registration No.-Rsvc/5751/2020 Address- Village-
Bajiyasar, Post- Kitalsar, Tehsil-Degana, Dist.- Nagaur,
(Rajasthan) Pin 341503
12. Santosh D/o Sh. Ganesh Ram, D.o.b.- 01.07.1994
Registration No.- Rsvc/5730/2020 Address-Village
Khokhara, Tehsil Sojat, Dist. Pali, (Rajasthan) Pin-
306306
13. Mrinal Verma S/o Sh. Yogeshwar, D.o.b.-05.03.1996
Registration No. Rsvc/5798/2020 Address I-E-22, New
Housing Board, Khoda Ganesh Ji Road, Madangang-
Kisshangarh, Dist.-Ajmer, (Rajasthan) Pin-305801
14. Sachin Patidar S/o Sh. Manoj Kumar Patidar, D.o.b.-
15.11.1995 Registration No.-Rsvc/5818/2021 Address
Mukam, Post- Dovra Tehsil- Dungarpur, Dist.- Dungarpur
(Rajasthan) Pin-314036
15. Himanshu Saini D/o Sh. Anand Saini, D.o.b.-07.05.1995
Registration No.- Rsvc/5692/2020 Address- Near Goinka
School, Ward No. 59, Tehsil-Churu, Dist.-Churu
(Rajasthan) Pin-331001
16. Jayanu Parmar D/o Sh. Rajesh Parmar, D.o.b.-
09.05.1996 Registration No. Rsvc/5693/2020 Address
V.p.o.- Mahuwal, Post- Sarera, Tehsil-Kherwara, Dist.-
Udaipur (Rajasthan) Pin-313804
17. Gireesh Joshi S/o Shri Jitendra Kumar Joshi, Resident Of
Plot No. 80, Nalanda Vihar, Maharani Farm, Durgapura,
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (31 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
Jaipur District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 295/2025
CNR: RJHC020267152025 | URN: SAW / 823U / 2025
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer- 305001
----Appellant
Versus
1. Gajendra Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 35
Years, R/o 243-244, Madhav Nagar, Opp. Durgapura
Railway Station, Durgapura Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Himanshu Raj Singh Chunwawat S/o Shri Mahipal Singh
Chundawat, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Gara
Ekling Ji, Tehsil Aspur, Gram Panchayat Khera Aspur,
Dungarpur.
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Animal Husbandry Department, Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya Sr. Adv. assisted
by Mr. Chayan Bothra, Mr. Sarthak
Asopa
Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Adv. assisted
by Mr. Aniket Tater & Mr. Harendra
Neel
Mr. Anirudh Singh Shekhawat for
Mr. Rajendra Prasad, A.G.
Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit
Mr. Yuvraj Samant for RPSC, with
Ms. Neha Amdla, Mr. Kshitij Jain, Mr.
Chinmay Surdlia & Mr. Tilak Vaid
through VC
Mr. Bhavit Sharma
Mr. Ayush Gehlot
Mr. Shubham Gupta
Mr. Amogh Gupta
Mr. Prashant
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Prateek Mathur
Mr. Manoj Sharma AAG through VC
Mr. Ravindra Jala for
Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (32 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
Mr. Harish Purohiit
Mr. Hanuman Choudhary
Mr. Mahesh Thanvi
Mr. Tanveer Ahmed with
Mr. Iliyas Khan & Ms. Priya Prakash
Ms. Pragya Thanvi
Mr. Raghvendra Mundel
Mr. Siddharth Shanker Sharma
Mr. S.P. Sharma
Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma with
Mr. Ayush Bishnoi, Ms. Pragya Seth
Mr. Girdhari Lal Prajapat
Mr. Sunny Choudhary
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of arguments
2. Date on which judgment was reserved
3. Whether the full judgment or only the
operative part is pronounced:
4. Date of pronouncement
04.08.2026
04.08.2026
Full Judgment
05.09.2026
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The instant batch of intra-court appeals arises out of the
common judgment dated 09.01.2025, whereby the writ petitions
forming Group ‘A’ were allowed, the merit/select list issued by the
Rajasthan Public Service Commission in recruitment to the post of
Veterinary Officer was quashed to the extent it included
candidates who had neither appeared in the Final Year
Examination of B.V.Sc. nor submitted their examination forms by
24.11.2019, and the Commission was directed to prepare a fresh
merit list after excluding such candidates. As a consequence, the
writ petitions forming Group ‘B’ were dismissed.
1.1.Since all the appeals arise from the same common judgment
and the principal controversy is common, D.B. Special Appeal Writ
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (33 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
No.675/2025, Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Durga Ram
& Ors., is taken as the lead case. The factual matrix and rival
submissions are being noticed therefrom, and the decision
rendered in the lead appeal shall govern the connected appeals.
1.2.The appellant in the lead appeal has claimed the following
relief:
“It is, therefore, in the instant facts and circumstances it
is humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that:
1.It may be pleased to allow the present Special
Appeal and be pleased to quash and set aside the
impugned judgment and common order dated
09.01.2025 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
17266/2024 titled as Durga & Ors. v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions by
the Ld. Single Judge for having been passed against
the settled principles of law and in dissonance with
the settled law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and the writ petition of the original petitioners
may kindly be ordered to be dismissed, in the
interest of justice.
2.And/Or, Pass any other order that this Court may
deem fit in favour of the Appellant in the interest of
justice, equity and good conscience.”
1.3. The lead appeal is accompanied by an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of 13
days’ delay in filing the appeal. The material placed on record also
reflects that D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.126/2025 had earlier
been preferred at the Jaipur Bench against the same common
judgment. By order dated 07.03.2025, the direction for revision of
the select list was kept in abeyance and, to protect the interests of
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (34 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
the writ petitioners covered by the common judgment, the
Commission and the State Government were directed not to fill up
43 posts without leave of the Court.
1.4.The connected appeals thereafter came to be heard together
with the lead appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Rajasthan Public Service
Commission issued advertisement dated 22.10.2019 inviting
applications for recruitment to 900 posts of Veterinary Officer
under the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1963
(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1963”). The prescribed
qualification included a Bachelor's Degree in Veterinary Science
and Animal Husbandry or its equivalent from a recognised
University together with the other qualifications prescribed under
the Rules.
2.1. Rule 11 of the Rules of 1963 contained a proviso enabling a
person who had appeared or was appearing in the Final Year
Examination of the course constituting the requisite educational
qualification to apply, subject to production of proof of acquisition
of the requisite educational qualification at the stage prescribed
therein. Where the selection was through written examination and
interview, such proof was required to be produced before
appearing in the interview.
2.2. The Commission thereafter conducted a shortlisting test on
02.08.2020 and declared the shortlisting result on 26.11.2020.
Litigation concerning other aspects of the same recruitment had
already commenced. The material on record shows that an earlier
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (35 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
round travelled through a Division Bench of this Court and
thereafter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court initially permitted the interviews to proceed while
restricting appointments and subsequently, by order dated
31.05.2024, permitted declaration of the result and issuance of
appointment letters, expressly making the appointments subject
to the outcome of the pending proceedings and clarifying that no
equity could be claimed on that basis.
2.3. The controversy relevant for the present batch arose when
candidates who had been admitted to or were pursuing the Final
Year of the B.V.Sc. & A.H. course, but who had neither appeared in
the Final Year Examination nor submitted the examination form for
such examination by the last date of applications, were treated by
the Commission as eligible. The writ petitioners forming Group ‘A’
questioned their inclusion in the selection. The candidates forming
Group ‘B’, whose candidature would be affected by acceptance of
the challenge, sought protection of their participation and
selection.
2.4. By the impugned common judgment, it was held that the
expression “has appeared or is appearing in the Final Year
Examination” could not be equated with mere admission to or
pursuit of the Final Year of the course. The impugned judgment
treated submission of the Final Year examination form and deposit
of the requisite examination fee as the objective stage from which
a candidate could be regarded as being in the process of
appearing in such examination. It was accordingly held that
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (36 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
candidates who had merely entered the Final Year but had neither
appeared in the Final Year Examination nor submitted the
examination form by 24.11.2019 were not eligible under the
proviso to Rule 11.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Rajasthan Public Service
Commission submitted that the impugned judgment had
introduced an eligibility criterion which was not expressly
contained in Rule 11. It was submitted that Rule 11 did not
require submission of the Final Year examination form or deposit
of examination fee by the last date of application as an
independent condition of eligibility.
3.1. Learned counsel submitted that the expression “appeared or
is appearing in the final year examination” had to be understood
in the context of the academic structure of the B.V.Sc. & A.H.
course. Attention was drawn to the changes made under the
Veterinary Council of India Minimum Standards of Veterinary
Education Regulations, 2016 as compared with the earlier
academic structure. It was urged that the course structure had
materially changed and, therefore, the earlier decisions concerning
preceding recruitments could not mechanically govern the present
recruitment.
3.2. It was further submitted that the advertisement itself
permitted candidates appearing in the Final Year of the requisite
educational qualification to apply, subject to their furnishing proof
of acquisition of the complete educational qualification before the
interview. According to learned counsel, the substantive
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (37 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
requirement was therefore acquisition of the prescribed
qualification by the stage of interview, and a candidate who
fulfilled such condition ought not to be excluded merely because
the examination form had not been submitted by the last date of
applications.
3.3. Learned counsel further urged that Rule 19 vested the
Commission with the authority to scrutinise applications and
determine eligibility. It was contended that the Commission had
adopted a uniform interpretation and that judicial review could not
be employed to substitute an additional eligibility condition for the
one prescribed by the recruiting authority.
3.4. It was also submitted that Universities follow different
practices regarding examination forms and examination fees and
that adoption of such a criterion could result in differential
treatment between otherwise similarly situated candidates.
3.5. Learned counsel further questioned the treatment of the Hindi
stipulation contained in the advertisement. It was submitted that
the impugned judgment had proceeded on the premise that there
was an inadvertent omission in the advertisement and had
thereby reconstructed the condition in a manner not warranted by
its language.
3.6. Learned counsel appearing for the candidate-appellants
whose candidature or selection stood affected substantially
adopted the aforesaid submissions and urged that they had
acquired the prescribed educational qualification before the stage
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (38 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
stipulated for interview and ought not to be displaced from the
selection.
3.7. Reliance was also placed upon Maharashtra Public Service
Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade , (2019) 6 SCC 362, for
the proposition that prescription and determination of eligibility
essentially lie within the domain of the employer and that the
Court cannot recast the conditions of recruitment by interpretative
rewriting.
3.8. Further reliance was also placed upon the following
judgments:
(a) RPSC, Ajmer Vs. Dr. Rama Singh Chundawat (D.B. Special
Appeal (Writ) No.570/2013 & other connected matters, decided by
this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench on 11.02.2016);
(b) Babulal Kumawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil
Special Appeal (Writ) No.1657/2017 & other connected matters,
decided by this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench on 03.11.2017;
(c) RPSC, Ajmer Vs. Shobha Mutha & Anr. (D.B. Special Appeal
(Writ) No.674/2016 & other connected matters, decided by this
Hon’ble Court on 05.01.2017;
(d) RPSC, Ajmer Vs. Kamlesh Kataria & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal
(Writ) No.1373/2016 decided by this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur
Bench on 10.04.2017;
(e) Madras Institute of Development Studies & Anr. Vs. K.
Sivasubramaniyan & Ors., (2016) 1 SCC 454;
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (39 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
(f) Dhanyay Malik & Ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. (2008) 4
SCC 171;
(g) Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors. Vs. Anil Joshi & Ors., (2013) 11
SCC 309;
(h) Vijendra Kumar Verma Vs. Public Service Commission,
Uttarakhand & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 150;
(I) Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC
576;
(j) Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. Vs. The State of Jammu & Kashmir,
(2023) 3 SCR 714;
(k) Chairman, State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. M.J. James, (2022) 2
SCC 301;
(l) Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary
Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade & Ors., (2019) 6 SCC 362;
(m) Krishnadatt Awasthy Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (Civil Appeal
No(s). 4806/2011 & other connected matters, decided by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court on 29.01.2025;
(n) Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. — 2024
INSC 847;
(o) State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. M/s Chotra Bhai Jetha Bhai
Patel Co. & Ors. — (1972) 1 SCC 209;
(p) State of Gujarat v. Chaturbhuj Maganlal — (1976) 3 SCC 54;
(q) Ajeet Singh Singhvi v. State of Rajasthan — 1991 Supp (1)
SCC 343;
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (40 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
(r) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v. Century
Textiles & Industries Ltd. — (2025) 3 SCC 183;
(s) A.N. Roy, Commissioner of Police & Anr. v. Suresh Sham Singh
— (2006) 5 SCC 745
(t) Pradeep Kumar Rai & Anr. v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. —
(2015) 11 SCC 493;
(u) EERA v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. — (2017) 15 SCC 133;
(v) Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Surendra Singh & Ors. —
Civil Appeal No. 5588/2020, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court on 01.08.2019;
(w) Bowen & Ors. v. Secular Society Ltd. — [1917] AC 406 (HL);
and
(x) Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Lavanshu Sankhla &
Ors. — 2026 SCC OnLine SC 796.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting private
respondents/original writ petitioners submitted that the language
of Rule 11 was clear. It was urged that the Rule did not use the
expression “studying in the Final Year” or “admitted to the Final
Year”, but specifically used the expression “has appeared or is
appearing in the Final Year Examination”.
4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the proviso to Rule 11
constituted a limited relaxation from the ordinary requirement of
possessing the complete qualification at the time of applying and
could be invoked only by candidates who fell within the class
expressly identified therein. It was urged that acquisition of the
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (41 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
complete qualification before interview constituted a subsequent
requirement and could not dispense with the anterior requirement
of being a candidate who had appeared or was appearing in the
Final Year Examination on the relevant date.
4.2. Learned counsel further submitted that submission of an
examination form was not treated by the impugned judgment as a
separate educational qualification but merely as objective
evidence that the candidate had crossed the stage of being a
student of the Final Year and had entered the process of appearing
in the Final Year Examination.
4.3.Reliance was placed upon the earlier decisions of this Court
in Rameshwar Prasad Choudhary and Manoj Kumar and upon the
Division Bench judgment dated 25.08.2017 in the appeal arising
from Manoj Kumar, wherein the same statutory expression was
considered in the context of earlier recruitment to the post of
Veterinary Officer. It was submitted that the statutory Rule had
remained unchanged. The impugned judgment also noticed and
relied upon those decisions.
4.4. It was further submitted that any ambiguity or drafting
deficiency in the advertisement could not override the statutory
Rules. The advertisement itself referred candidates to the Rules of
1963 and, therefore, eligibility had necessarily to be determined
under Rule 11.
4.5. On the objection concerning delay and acquiescence, learned
counsel submitted that the writ petitioners were not questioning a
recruitment condition which had operated against them after they
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (42 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
had participated in the process; rather, their grievance was
against the Commission's subsequent action of including persons
who, according to them, did not satisfy Rule 11. It was therefore
urged that the cause for challenge arose upon such inclusion in
the select list.
4.6. In support of such submissions, reliance has been placed on
the following judgments:
(a) Manoj Kumar & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal
(Writ) No.858/2016, decided by this Hon’ble Court on
28.08.2017;
(b) Rameshwar Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (D.B.
Special Appeal (Writ) No.931/2024 & other connected matter,
decided by this Hon’ble Court on 04.11.2025;
(c) Rakesh Bakshi & Anr. Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.,
(2019) 3 SCC 511;
(d) Jomon K.K. Vs. Shajimon P. & Ors., 2025 INSC 425;
(e) The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Anju Rini Saini (Civil Appeal
No.872/2022, decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.02.2022;
and
(f) RPSC Vs. Lavanshu Sankhla & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.____of
2026 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.32964 of 2025) & other
connected matters, decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on
04.05.2026.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (43 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
5.1. The principal question requiring consideration is whether a
person who was merely admitted to or pursuing the Final Year of
the B.V.Sc. & A.H. course, but had neither appeared in nor
reached the stage of appearing in the Final Year Examination by
24.11.2019, could claim the benefit of the proviso to Rule 11
merely because the requisite educational qualification was
subsequently acquired before the interview.
5.2. Rule 11, insofar as relevant, reads as under:
“11. Academic and Technical Qualifications:- A candidate
for direct recruitment to the post specified in the
Schedule shall possess (1) the qualifications given in
Column 4 of the Schedule, and
(2) Working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri Script
and knowledge of Rajasthani culture.
Provided that the person who has appeared or is
appearing in the final year examination of the course
which is the requisite educational qualification for the
post as mentioned in the rules or schedule for direct
recruitment, shall be eligible to apply for the post but he/
she shall have to submit proof of having acquired the
requisite educational qualification to the appropriate
selection agency:-
(i) before appearing in the main examination, where
selection is made through two stages of written
examination and interview;
(ii) before appearing in interview where selection is made
through written examination and interview;
(iii) before appearing in the written examination or
interview where selection is made through only written
examination or only interview, as the case may be.”
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (44 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
5.3. This Court finds that the proviso contemplates two distinct
stages.
5.3.1. The first determines who is entitled to apply despite not
yet possessing the completed educational qualification. For
obtaining such benefit, the candidate must be a person who “has
appeared or is appearing in the final year examination”.
5.3.2. The second determines the stage by which such
candidate must produce proof that the complete educational
qualification has subsequently been acquired.
The latter requirement does not obliterate the former.
5.4. This Court observes that acceptance of the construction urged
by the appellants would result in replacing the expression “is
appearing in the Final Year Examination” with the materially wider
expression “is studying in the Final Year”.
The Rule does not employ the latter expression.
The words “Final Year Examination” have a definite statutory
significance and cannot be rendered redundant while interpreting
the proviso.
5.5. This Court further observes that the impugned judgment
cannot fairly be understood as prescribing the filing of an
examination form or payment of examination fee as a new
educational qualification. The question before the Court was
whether a candidate who had merely entered the Final Year could
nevertheless be described as one who “is appearing in the Final
Year Examination”.
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (45 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
5.5.1. In that context, submission of the examination form and
deposit of the examination fee were treated as objective indicia
showing that a candidate had crossed the stage of merely
pursuing the Final Year and had entered the process relating to
the ensuing Final Year Examination.
5.5.2. In the present controversy, the exclusion was confined to
candidates who had neither actually appeared in the Final Year
Examination nor even submitted the examination form by the
relevant date. The impugned judgment therefore did not
substitute a different educational qualification for the one
prescribed by Rule 11; it applied the statutory expression to the
factual stage reached by the candidates.
5.6. The distinction assumes further significance because the
proviso is itself an exception to the ordinary requirement of
possessing the prescribed educational qualification. The relaxation
cannot be extended beyond the class identified by the Rule. A
candidate who does not satisfy the first limb cannot invoke the
second limb merely because he or she subsequently completed
the qualification before the interview.
5.7. The contention based upon the changed course structure
under the Regulations of 2016 also does not persuade this Court
to adopt a construction contrary to the language of Rule 11. The
academic structure may have changed, but Rule 11 was not
correspondingly amended so as to replace “appeared or is
appearing in the Final Year Examination” with “admitted to or
studying in the Final Year”.
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (46 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
5.7.1. If the altered academic regime has rendered the
existing statutory formulation inappropriate for future
recruitments, the matter lies within the domain of the competent
rule-making authority. The recruiting agency cannot, through
administrative interpretation, alter the class of candidates whom
the statutory proviso makes eligible.
5.8. The latest reiteration of the governing principle is found in
Md. Firoz Mansuri & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. , 2026 INSC
68. In paragraph 59, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
“Courts cannot rewrite service rules, determine
equivalence of qualifications, or substitute their own
assessment for that of the employer.”
The same paragraph recognises the employer's domain in
determining qualifications while making it clear that such authority
cannot be exercised arbitrarily.
5.9. The aforesaid principle does not assist the appellants in the
manner suggested. This Court is not prescribing a qualification
which the employer ought to have prescribed. The qualification
and the statutory relaxation already stand prescribed by Rule 11.
The judicial inquiry is only whether the Commission's application
of that Rule remained within its text. This Court finds that
enlarging “appeared or is appearing in the Final Year Examination”
so as to include every person merely admitted to the Final Year
would itself amount to altering the statutory condition.
5.10. Reliance upon Maharashtra Public Service Commission
v. Sandeep Shriram Warade (supra) , also does not alter the
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (47 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
conclusion. The principle laid down therein is that courts cannot,
by interpretative rewriting, substitute their own eligibility
requirements where the Rules and advertisement are clear.
Applied to the present case, the said principle requires fidelity to
Rule 11. The Commission's domain under Rule 19 cannot extend
to giving the proviso a meaning which removes the words “Final
Year Examination” from practical operation.
5.11. This Court further finds that Rule 19, which entrusts scrutiny
of applications to the Commission and accords finality to its
decision concerning eligibility, has to operate subject to the
statutory qualifications prescribed by the Rules themselves. The
power to scrutinise eligibility is not a power to alter eligibility.
5.12. The earlier decisions in Rameshwar Prasad Choudhary
(supra), including the Division Bench judgment dated
25.08.2017, were also appropriately noticed in the impugned
judgment. Those decisions arose in an earlier academic setting,
and the factual distinction urged by the appellants has been
considered. Nevertheless, the statutory proposition for which
those decisions were noticed remains relevant: mere progression
in the academic course is not equivalent to having appeared or
being in the process of appearing in the Final Year Examination
where the governing Rule specifically uses the latter expression.
5.13. This Court also finds no reason to interfere merely because
the Hindi stipulation in the advertisement was not happily worded.
The decisive source of eligibility is the statutory Rule. Where the
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (48 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
advertisement admits of a construction inconsistent with Rule 11,
the Rule must prevail.
5.13.1. It is therefore unnecessary for this Court to approve every
expression employed in the impugned judgment concerning the
drafting of the advertisement. The ultimate conclusion can be
sustained on the plain language of Rule 11 itself.
5.14. The plea concerning delay and acquiescence also does not
warrant interference. The contesting writ petitioners were not
seeking to avoid a condition of recruitment after having
unsuccessfully participated under it. Their grievance was directed
against the Commission's action of treating other candidates as
eligible in a manner which, according to them, was contrary to
Rule 11. The impugned judgment found that the cause of action
arose when such candidates were included in the select list. The
distinction drawn from cases relating to participation in a selection
followed by a challenge to the procedure of selection is therefore
well founded.
5.15. The plea of equity on behalf of candidates who subsequently
came to be selected or appointed also cannot override the
statutory requirement. The order dated 31.05.2024 of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, as reproduced in the record, expressly permitted
declaration of result and issuance of appointment letters subject
to the outcome of the pending proceedings , with a further
direction that the selected candidates were to be notified that they
would not be entitled to claim equity on that ground. Thus, the
[2026:RJ-JD:42855-DB] (49 of 49) [SAW-675/2025]
appointments made during pendency of the litigation were always
subject to the adjudication of eligibility.
5.16. On consideration of the entire matter, this Court finds that
the essential conclusion recorded in the impugned judgment is
consistent with Rule 11. A candidate merely pursuing the Final
Year, who had neither appeared in the Final Year Examination nor
reached the stage reflected by submission of the Final Year
examination form by the last date of applications, could not claim
the statutory relaxation merely because the complete educational
qualification was acquired subsequently before the interview.
5.17. This Court accordingly finds no ground warranting
interference with the impugned common judgment in exercise of
the intra-court appellate jurisdiction.
6.1. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.675/2025 is dismissed. The
common judgment dated 09.01.2025 is affirmed.
6.2. Since the connected appeals arise from the same common
judgment and the common question raised therein stands
concluded by the determination made in the lead appeal, as
indicated above, the rest of the instant appeals are also
dismissed in terms of the present judgment.
6.3. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
Skant/-
In a significant ruling concerning Rajasthan Veterinary Officer Recruitment, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 675/2025 (and connected matters), has dismissed appeals against a common judgment that quashed the merit list to the extent it included candidates not meeting strict eligibility criteria. This pivotal decision clarifies the interpretation of Eligibility Criteria for Government Jobs, specifically for those 'appearing in the final year examination.' The judgment, now accessible on CaseOn, serves as a crucial reference for understanding the nuances of statutory interpretation in public employment.
The central legal question before the High Court was whether candidates who were merely admitted to or pursuing the Final Year of the B.V.Sc. & A.H. course, but had not physically appeared in the Final Year Examination or submitted their examination forms by the application deadline (24.11.2019), could be considered eligible under the proviso to Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1963. The challenge was mounted against the Rajasthan Public Service Commission's (RPSC) inclusion of such candidates, leading to two groups of writ petitions: Group 'A' challenging the inclusion and Group 'B' seeking protection for those included.
The High Court primarily relied on Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1963, which outlines the academic and technical qualifications. The crucial proviso to Rule 11 allows a person who 'has appeared or is appearing in the final year examination' of the requisite educational qualification to apply. However, such a candidate must submit proof of acquiring the qualification before the interview. The court also considered precedents like Rameshwar Prasad Choudhary and Manoj Kumar, which interpreted similar statutory expressions in prior recruitments. Key legal principles emphasized included the domain of the employer in prescribing eligibility and the court's limited role in interpretation, as reiterated in Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade.
For legal professionals and students grappling with the intricacies of such rulings, CaseOn.in offers 2-minute audio briefs that provide concise, expert analysis of these specific judgments, making complex legal interpretations readily understandable and accessible.
The Court meticulously dissected the proviso to Rule 11, identifying two distinct conditions: first, eligibility to apply based on having 'appeared or is appearing in the final year examination,' and second, the requirement to produce proof of qualification later. The High Court firmly rejected the appellant's argument to equate 'is appearing in the final year examination' with simply 'studying in' or 'admitted to' the final year. It underscored that the term 'Final Year Examination' carries specific statutory weight and cannot be diluted.
The submission of examination forms and fees was deemed an 'objective indicia' that a candidate had moved beyond merely pursuing the final year and had actively entered the process of appearing in the examination. This wasn't construed as adding a new qualification but rather defining the factual stage implied by the statutory language.
Addressing the argument about changes in academic structure under the Veterinary Council of India Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education Regulations, 2016, the Court noted that while the course structure might have changed, Rule 11 itself had not been amended. Therefore, administrative interpretations could not override or alter the statutory eligibility criteria. The court affirmed that Rule 19, which gives the RPSC authority to scrutinize applications, does not grant it the power to redefine or alter statutory eligibility.
Furthermore, the Court dismissed arguments of delay and acquiescence, reasoning that the writ petitioners were not challenging a condition they had participated under, but rather the RPSC's subsequent action of including candidates who, in their view, were ineligible under Rule 11. The cause of action, therefore, arose from the inclusion in the select list. The plea for equity on behalf of selected candidates was also rejected, particularly in light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order of 31.05.2024, which explicitly permitted declarations and appointments subject to the outcome of the pending proceedings and clarified that no equity could be claimed.
In light of the detailed analysis, the High Court concluded that its essential finding was consistent with Rule 11. Candidates who were merely pursuing the Final Year, but had neither appeared in the Final Year Examination nor submitted their examination forms by the last date of applications, could not avail the statutory relaxation. Such individuals did not satisfy the first limb of the proviso to Rule 11, regardless of whether they subsequently acquired the full educational qualification before the interview. Consequently, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.675/2025 and all connected appeals were dismissed, affirming the common judgment dated 09.01.2025, which directed the RPSC to prepare a fresh merit list after excluding such ineligible candidates.
The Rajasthan High Court’s ruling reinforces the principle of strict statutory interpretation in recruitment processes. It holds that for candidates claiming eligibility under a 'final year appearing' clause, mere admission or study in the final year is insufficient. There must be an objective action, such as submitting an examination form, signifying active participation in the final year examination process by the application deadline. The judgment prevents administrative bodies from reinterpreting clear statutory language and underscores that equity cannot override specific legal requirements, especially when appointments were made subject to ongoing litigation.
This judgment is a crucial read for:
All information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to consult with a qualified legal professional for advice on any specific legal matter.
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....