Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Anita Choudhary D/O Shravanlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:10830]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
(1) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16386/2025
1. Dinesh Sharma S/o Ramniwas Sharma, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Village Post Punana, Jaahota, Tehsil Amer,
District Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 303701.
2. Chandan S/o Ashok Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
RHB Colony Hanumangarh Junction (Rajasthan)-335512.
3. Sawai Singh Ranga S/o Durga Shankar Ranga, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Near Lali Mai Bagechi, Bhatolayi,
Bikaner (Rajasthan)- 334001.
4. Abhishek Purohit S/o Yogesh Kumar Purohit, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Mundhro Ka Chauk, Bikaner (Rajasthan) -
334005.
5. Vaishali Panwar D/o Sampat Singh Panwar, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Bikaner (Rajasthan)-334001.
6. Akash Khatri S/o Mahendra Kumar Khatri, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Near RASV School, Kamla Colony, Bikaner
(Rajasthan) - 334001.
7. Nikita Sharma D/o Ashok Sharma, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Dausa (Rajasthan) - 303303.
8. Ashutosh Sharma S/o Dilip Kumar Sharma, Aged About
21 Years, R/o Village Post Hingotiya, Dausa (Rajasthan) -
303303.
9. Gajrajsingh Shekhawat S/o Sumersingh Shekhawat, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Chomu, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) -
303702.
10. Harshil Kumar Jain S/o Dinesh Kumar Jain, Aged About
31 Years, R/o Meena Colony, Behind Jail, Sawaimadhopur
(Rajasthan) - 322001.
11. Vijaydev Pandya S/o Satish Kumar Pandya, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Bhusavar, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) - 321406.
12. Shankar Sharma S/o Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o 12, Mahaveer Colony, Kartarpura,
Jaipur - 302006.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (2 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its
Secretary Having Its Office At Rajasthan Agriculture
Management Institute Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur -
302018.
----Respondents
Connected With
(2) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16396/2025
1. Anita Choudhary D/o Shravanlal, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Teja Ji Ke Pass, Kalwar Road, Manchava, Kalwad,
Jaipur, Rajasthan- 303706.
2. Komal Khatri D/o Khemchand Khatri, Aged About 29
Years, R/o E-92, Gaya Guru Ki Gali, Sitaram Bazaar,
Brahmpuri, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302002.
3. Anjali Chhinpa D/o Omprakash, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Chhipon Ka Mohalla, G.s. Road, Bikaner, Rajasthan-
334001.
4. Deepak Singh S/o Surendra Singh, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Kuchaman, Rajasthan- 341508.
5. Pawan Beniwal S/o Tulsiram Beniwal, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Near Sbi Bank, Didwana Road, Nagaur,
Rajasthan- 341001.
6. Sunil Kumawat S/o Lalchand Kumawat, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Kuchaman City, Didwana, Kuchaman,
Rajasthan – 341508.
7. Sangeeta D/o Gopal Lal, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Nawa,
Didwana-Kuchaman, Rajasthan- 341509.
8. Kiran D/o Sohan Lal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Kuchaman
City, Didwana-Kuchaman, Rajasthan- 341508.
9. Mayank Rajput S/o Vijay Singh Rajput, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Tajia Chowk, Gujri Darwaja Devgarh, District
Rajsamand, Rajasthan- 313331.
10. Kiran D/o Tikamchand, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Ward
No. 23, District- Didwana-Kuchaman, Rajasthan- 341509.
11. Tanisha Saini D/o Sunil Kumar Saini, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Alwar, Rajasthan 301001.
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (3 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
12. Jayshree Swami D/o Prakash Swami, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Bikaner, Rajasthan 334001.
13. Shubham Kumar Maru S/o Purushottam Das Maru, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Bhattadon Ka Chowk, Naiyon Ki Badi,
Guwad, Bikaner, Rajasthan- 334001.
14. Vikas Chaudhary S/o Pokharmal Rulania, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Sikar, Rajasthan- 332404.
15. Anil Kumar Bochliya S/o Shivpal Bochliya, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Tehsil Kishangarh, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 303602.
16. Deepika Chouhan D/o Chandra Prakash Singh Chouhan,
Aged About 35 Years, R/o Sotya Pada, District Bundi,
Rajasthan- 323001.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board Jaipur, Through Its
Secretary Having Its Office At Rajasthan Agriculture
Management Institute Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur-
302018.
—-Respondents
(3) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16553/2025
Mallu Ram Katariya, S/o Ganesh Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Meghwalo Ka Bass, Gothara, Gothra, Post Office Kuchera, District
Nagaur, Rajasthan, 341024.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, Through Its
Secretary Having Its Office At Rajasthan Agriculture
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (4 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
Management Institute Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur –
302018.
—-Respondents
(4) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16782/2025
1. Ram Lal Chaudhary, S/o Madan Lal Chaudhary, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o 107, Vikas Nagar – C, Gas Godown
Roadgirdharipura, Heerapura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan –
302021.
2. Sunil S/o Madan Lal Bishnoi, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 27, New, , Near Bishnoi Mandir,
Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan, Pin –
335804.
3. Atul Kumar, S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Ward No. 09, 78 Rb, Ganganagar, Rajasthan – 335051.
4. Anuradha D/o Kamlesh Kumar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Ward No 13 (Old), 17 (New), Near Shakya Muni Bodh
Bihar Mandir, Raisinghnagar, Anoopgarh, Rajasthan –
335051.
5. Shubham Sharma S/o Satish Sharma, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village Goth Post Surer Tehsil, Rajgarh, Alwar,
Rajasthan-301408.
6. Arihant Pal Singh S/o Vijay Pal Singh, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Karauli House, Subhash Colony, Behind Tehsil
Nawa, Nagaur, Rajasthan-341509.
7. Anju Bala D/o Prakash Godara, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
118-G Baba Hariram Marg Mandir, Ramdev Colony, Se
(Rural) Ganganagar, Rajasthan-335001.
8. Sonu Saharan S/o Ram Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
53 Np, Po Bagicha, Raisinghnagar, Sri Ganganagar,
Rajasthan-335051
9. Naznin Bano D/o Ashan Khan, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Street No. 2, Near Kafiya Palace, Moti Chowk, Longiya,
Ajmer, Rajasthan-305001.
10. Brajesh Kumar S/o Man Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Village Hanipur, Post Reta, Tehsil Kathumar, Alwar,
Rajasthan-321605.
—-Petitioners
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (5 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (Rssb), Through Its
Secretary, State Institute Of Agriculture Management
Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur – 302018.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
– 302005.
—-Respondents
(5) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16800/2025
Pooja Meena D/o Devi Narayan Meena, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Naradpura Road, Kunda Amer, Badri Vihar Colony, Nangal
Soosawatan, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302028.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its
Secretary Having Its Office At Rajasthan Agriculture
Management Institute Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur-
302018.
—-Respondents
(6) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17715/2025
Deepa Sharma C/o Mr. Dharam Chand Sharma, Aged About 38
Years, R/o 1/52, N E B Housing Board, Behind Krishi Upaj Mandi,
Alwar (Raj.)
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its
Secretary Having Its Office At Rajasthan Agriculture
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (6 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
Management Institute Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur
302018
—-Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep Pathak Advocate with
Ms. Jaya Pathak Advocate &
Mr. Arnav Singh Advocate.
Ms. Shobha Sharma Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Anil Kumar Jain
Advocate.
Mr. Akshay Singh Advocate.
Ms. Pragya Seth Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Vigyan Shah, Additional Advocate
General assisted by
Mr. Deepak Mittal Advocate, Mr.
Priyam Agarwal Advocate, Mr.
Sankalp Vijay Advocate.
Mr. Yuvraj Samant Advocate with
Ms. Neha Amola Advocate
Mr. Punit Singhvi Advocate with
Mr. Ayush Singh Advocate,
Mr. Ajay Singh Advocate,
Ms. Sharddha Mehta Advocate,
Mr. Ishan Verma Advocate,
Mr. Naman Dadhich Advocate,
Mr. Yashoverdhan Agarwal Advocate &
Ms. Suhani Singh Advocate.
Mr. Archit Bohra Additional
Government Counsel with Mr. Prakhar
Jain Advocate.
Mr. Tilak Vaid Advocate.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
REPORTABLE
Date of conclusion of arguments :: 25.02.2026
Date on which judgment was reserved :: 25.02.2026
Whether the full judgment or only
the operative part is pronounced :: Full Judgment
Date of pronouncement :: 18.03.2026
1. Since the above writ petitions arise out of almost
identical facts and circumstances, involve a common cause of
action, similar grievances, raise common questions of law and
facts for consideration by this Court, the same were, with the
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (7 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties,
heard analogously and are being decided by this common
judgment. For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of
facts, the pleadings and facts stated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
16386/2025, Dinesh Sharma & Others vs. State of Rajasthan &
Others. are being taken as the lead case and are referred to for
the purpose of adjudication of the issues involved in the present
batch of petitions.
2. Petitioners have challenged legality and validity of the
action of the respondents in granting an additional relaxation of
5% in the maximum permissible mistakes/errors in Phase-II of the
recruitment process for the posts of Stenographer and Personal
Assistant Grade-II pursuant to the advertisement dated
26.02.2024. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing the
provisional merit list dated 25.09.2025 and further actions on the
ground that the grant of such relaxation is contrary to Clause
22(6)(iv) of the advertisement and the governing service rules.
3. The facts giving rise to the present petitions, briefly
stated, are that at the instance of respondent-Government, the
Rajasthan Staff Selection Board issued an advertisement dated
26.02.2024 inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of
Stenographer and Personal Assistant Grade-II in the Secretariat as
well as subordinate offices of the State Government. As many as
444 vacancies were advertised for the aforesaid for Non-TSP area
and the recruitment was governed by the Rajasthan Secretariat
Ministerial Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the
Rules of 1970’), the Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Service
Rules, 1999 and the Rajasthan Scheduled Areas Subordinate,
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (8 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
Ministerial and Class-IV Service (Recruitment & Other Service
Conditions) Rules, 2014.
4. The scheme of examination prescribed under Clause 22
of the advertisement provided for a two-phase selection process.
Phase-I consisted of a written examination and Phase-II consisted
of a skill test relating to stenography. As per the scheme,
candidates securing minimum 40% marks in each paper of Phase-
I were eligible for consideration for Phase-II, subject to the zone
of consideration prescribed under the rules. Final merit list was to
be prepared by adding total marks of the above Phase-I and
Phase-II examination.
5. The written examination was conducted on 05.10.2024
and the result thereof was declared on 23.12.2024. Thereafter,
the candidates qualifying Phase-I were permitted to appear in
Phase-II. Initially the Phase-II examination scheduled in March
2025 was cancelled and subsequently re-conducted on
29.06.2025. The result of both phases was declared on
25.09.2025 and a provisional list of 904 candidates was published
for document verification.
6. The petitioners, who had successfully cleared both
phases of the examination, contended that the respondent-Board
illegally granted an additional relaxation of 5% in the permissible
mistakes/errors in the skill test by invoking Clause 22(6)(iv) of the
advertisement. According to the petitioners, under Clause 22(6)
(iii), the maximum permissible mistakes were prescribed as 20%
for general category candidates and 25% for SC/ST candidates.
Clause 22(6)(iv) of the advertisement further provided that an
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (9 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
additional relaxation upto 5% could be granted only where
sufficient number of candidates were not available in any category.
7. The petitioners contended that despite sufficient
number of candidates being available within the originally
prescribed limits, the respondents arbitrarily granted the
additional relaxation of 5%, which resulted in candidates
committing more mistakes in skill test than permissible limits
qualifying the skill test and being called for document verification.
8. The petitioners further contended that by illegally
granting additional relaxation as many as 904 candidates were
called for document verification against only 444 vacancies,
whereas sufficient candidates were already available without any
relaxation. It is further contended that the relaxation has resulted
in grant of dual benefit to candidates belonging to SC/ST
categories as they were already entitled to 5% relaxation in the
permissible mistakes under Clause 22(6)(iii).
9. The petitioners also relied upon the conditions of the
advertisement which stipulate that reserved category candidates
would be eligible for selection against unreserved posts only if
they have not availed any relaxation other than fee concession.
According to the petitioners, the grant of additional relaxation has
resulted in reserved category candidates being considered against
unreserved posts despite having availed dual relaxation.
10. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners
filed an additional affidavit placing on record the final merit list
issued by the respondents vide press note dated 21.10.2025. It
has been asserted therein that out of 904 candidates declared
successful, as many as 643 candidates in the Non-TSP area had
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (10 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
qualified the skill test without availing any additional relaxation. It
is contended that since the total number of Non-TSP vacancies
was only 444, the availability of 643 candidates itself establishes
that sufficient candidates were already available without any
relaxation.
11. The additional affidavit further provides category-wise
details to demonstrate that even within each category sufficient
number of candidates had qualified within the original permissible
limits. It has been asserted that more than the required number of
candidates were available in General, OBC, EWS, SC and ST
categories without availing the additional relaxation and therefore
the invocation of Clause 22(6)(iv) of the advertisement was wholly
unwarranted.
12. The respondents opposed the writ petition by way of
filing reply and contended that the recruitment process is
governed by the applicable service rules framed under Article 309
of the Constitution of India and the advertisement merely reflects
the provisions contained therein. It is contended that the rules
confer discretion upon the Board to grant further relaxation of up
to 5% in permissible mistakes if sufficient number of candidates
are not available.
13. The respondents further contended that the expression
“sufficient number of candidates” has not been defined in the rules
and therefore the Board was required to assess the sufficiency of
candidates keeping in view the administrative instructions issued
by the Department of Personnel. Reliance has been placed upon
the circular dated 18.10.2021 which prescribes that at least twice
the number of advertised vacancies should be called for document
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (11 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
verification to account for possible disqualifications during
document verification.
14. It is further pleaded in reply to the writ petition that
upon assessing the number of candidates qualifying the skill test
within the original permissible limits, the Board found that the
number of candidates was less than twice the number of
advertised vacancies in several categories. Accordingly, the Board
decided to grant an additional relaxation of 5% in the permissible
mistakes in order to ensure availability of adequate candidates for
preparation of waiting list as well as for document verification.
15. The respondents also contended that the relaxation was
granted uniformly and no candidate less meritorious than the
petitioners would be selected. It has further been argued that the
petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties as the
selected candidates have not been impleaded.
16. In reply to writ petition the Respondents put an
endeavour to summarise the data by giving following two tables:
TABLE-A
Status of posts and qualifying candidates in NTSP without
additional 5% relaxation-
2 Times of No. of Shortlisted
S. No. Category Posts Posts candidates in 2 times.
1 General 238 476 476
2 EWS 43 86 29
3 OBC 80 160 62
4 MBC 15 30 4
5 SC 39 78 34
6 ST 23 46 25
7 SAH 6 12 0
Total 444 888 630
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (12 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
TABLE-B
Status of posts and qualifying candidates in NTSP with
additional 5% relaxation except General Category-
2 times of No. of shortlisted
S. No. Category Posts the posts candidates in 2 times
1 General 238 476 476
2 EWS 43 86 82
3 OBC 80 160 173
4 MBC 15 30 22
5 SC 39 78 66
6 ST 23 46 46
7 SAH 6 12 0
Total 444 888 865
17. Aforesaid details have been disputed by the petitioners
and it has been submitted that even without granting additional
relaxation of 5%, 259 candidates against 238 vacancies of
unreserved category, 172 candidates against 80 vacancies of OBC,
105 candidates against 43 vacancies of EWS, 56 candidates
against 39 vacancies of SC and 43 candidates against 23
advertised vacancies of ST were available. Hence, sufficient
number of candidates since already available, there was no
requirement to grant additional relaxation of 5% by giving wrong
details and by misconceived invocation of relaxation power.
18. During the pendency of writ petition, an interim
application was also filed by the candidates who were selected
after getting benefit of additional relaxation of 5% in maximum
permissible mistakes during skill test conducted in Phase-II and
were part of 904 selected candidates. This Court permitted such
candidates as intervenors in the petition, so as to provide them
also an opportunity of hearing before finally deciding the issue.
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (13 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
19. Mr. Sandeep Pathak and Mr. Akshay Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the facts of the writ
petition, submitted that the action of the respondents in granting
additional relaxation of 5% in the permissible mistakes in Phase-II
of the examination is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the express
conditions of the advertisement dated 26.02.2024 as well as the
governing service rules.
20. It was argued that Clause 22(6)(iv) of the
advertisement permits an additional relaxation of up to 5% only
where the Board forms an opinion that sufficient number of
candidates are not available in any particular category.
21. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case the
respondents have granted the additional relaxation mechanically
and across all categories, despite the availability of sufficient
candidates within the originally prescribed limits. It was submitted
that the provisional result dated 25.09.2025 itself shows that 643
candidates were already available against only 444 advertised
vacancies, which clearly indicates that there was no shortage of
candidates so as to justify invocation of the relaxation clause.
22. It was further argued that the impugned relaxation has
resulted in distortion of the merit list, as candidates who
committed mistakes beyond the originally prescribed limits have
been allowed to qualify the skill test, thereby adversely affecting
the chances of more meritorious candidates.
23. Learned counsel also submitted that the action of the
respondents has resulted in grant of dual relaxation to candidates
belonging to reserved categories, as they were already entitled to
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (14 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
a higher permissible limit of mistakes under Clause 22(6)(iii) of
the advertisement. Attention of the Court was further invited to
the condition in the advertisement which provides that reserved
category candidates would be eligible for selection against
unreserved posts only if they have not availed any relaxation
other than fee concession. However, the provisional merit list
shows that reserved category candidates have been placed against
unreserved posts despite availing relaxation.
24. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that
the Respondents were under an obligation to disclose entire
criteria to assess the eligibility of the candidates in the
advertisement and as per the criteria reflected in the
advertisement, the Rules of 1970 were to regulate the process,
however, in ignorance thereof, after the examination of Phase-II,
the respondents have illegally sought to apply DOP circular dated
18.10.2021, which amounts to change of rules of the game after
start of play and even otherwise, the Circular dated 18.10.2021
being contrary to specific statutory rules, cannot supplant the
rules and is not applicable. Therefore, additional relaxation of 5%
granted by the Board contrary to the Rules and by wrongly
applying administrative circular is arbitrary and is liable to be
declared illegal.
25. It was vehemently argued that erstwhile Rule 22 of the
Rules of 1970 (prior to amendment) provided for preparation of
list after Phase-II examination by including twice the number of
vacancies and such condition has been substituted by the rule
making authority by way of an amendment in Rule 22 of the Rules
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (15 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
of 1970 vide notification dated 18.08.2023, whereby while
deleting the provision for preparing merit list by the earlier
method of calculating double the vacancies advertised, quite
consciously after amendment, a rider of maximum permissible
limit of mistakes has been put, so as to raise the standard of
examination with the object to have better skilled stenographers
after selection. But, while preparing the impugned list, the
respondents have attempted to revive the already deleted
provisions of the Rules, which is not permissible in law.
26. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned action
of the respondents is arbitrary, contrary to the conditions of the
advertisement, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India, and consequently the provisional merit list
dated 25.09.2025 and subsequent final list deserve to be quashed
with a direction to the respondents to prepare a fresh merit list by
applying the originally prescribed limits of permissible mistakes.
27. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon
judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Tej Prakash
Patahk & Others vs. Rajasthan High Court & Others, (Order
dated 07.11.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2634 of 2013),
Abhay Kumar Patel & others vs. State of Bihar & Others,
(Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.
22323 of 2023 and another connected SLP decided on
06.01.2026), R. Ranjith Singh & Others vs. State of Tamil
Nadu & Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1009, Jaiveer Singh &
Others vs. State of Uttrarakhand & Others, (2024) 15 SCC
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (16 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
227 and Union of India & Another vs. Ashok Kumar
Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147.
28. Per contra, Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned Additional
Advocate, Mr. Yuvraj Sawant, learned Counsel for the Respondent-
Board and Mr. Puneet Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the
intervenors opposed the writ petition and submitted that the
challenge raised by the petitioners is misconceived and devoid of
merit. It was submitted that the recruitment in question was
conducted pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.02.2024 for
the posts of Stenographer and Personal Assistant Grade-II, which
is governed by the statutory Rules.
29. Learned counsel submitted that both the applicable
service rules as well as Clause 22(6)(iv) of the advertisement
confer discretion upon the Selection Board to grant additional
relaxation of up to 5% in permissible mistakes if, in its opinion,
sufficient number of candidates are not available in any category.
30. It was contended that the expression “sufficient
number of candidates” is not defined in the rules governing the
selection process and therefore the assessment of such sufficiency
necessarily falls within the domain of the Selection Board. In the
present case, the Board assessed the requirement of sufficient
candidates by following the guidelines issued by the Department
of Personnel through circular dated 18.10.2021, which require the
selection authorities to ensure availability of at least two times the
number of advertised vacancies for the purpose of document
verification and preparation of the select and waiting lists.
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (17 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
31. Learned counsel submitted that when the result of
Phase-II was initially assessed without granting the additional
relaxation, the number of eligible candidates in several categories
was far below two times the number of vacancies, and in certain
categories even below the number of vacancies themselves. In
order to ensure adequate availability of candidates for completion
of the recruitment process in accordance with the aforesaid
guidelines, the Board exercised the discretion vested in it under
the rules and granted additional relaxation of 5% in permissible
mistakes.
32. It was further submitted that the relaxation was
granted in a structured manner so as to ensure that the minimum
requirement of two times the number of candidates could be
achieved. Initially the relaxation was extended to reserved
categories where the number of available candidates was
insufficient; however, even thereafter the total number of
candidates remained below the required benchmark.
Consequently, the same relaxation was extended to general
category candidates as well, whereupon the total number of
eligible candidates became adequate for the purpose of document
verification.
33. Learned counsel further contended that the allegation
of the petitioners that the relaxation has resulted in prejudice to
general category candidates is unfounded. It was submitted that
once the additional relaxation was granted uniformly, the
maximum permissible mistakes for General, OBC, MBC and EWS
categories stood at 25%, whereas for SC/ST categories it stood at
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (18 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
30%. However, candidates belonging to SC/ST categories who
availed relaxation beyond the permissible limit applicable to
general category candidates would not be considered for
appointment against unreserved posts, thereby ensuring that no
prejudice is caused to candidates belonging to the unreserved
category.
34. It was also argued that the petitioners have proceeded
on an erroneous assumption that the expression “sufficient
number of candidates” should be equated with the exact number
of advertised vacancies, whereas the recruitment process
necessarily requires availability of a larger pool of candidates to
account for contingencies such as disqualification at the stage of
document verification, non-joining, or preparation of waiting lists.
Therefore, the decision of the Board to treat two times the number
of vacancies as the benchmark for sufficient candidates is
reasonable and consistent with the administrative guidelines
issued by the Department of Personnel.
35. On the basis of the tabulated data shown in the Reply
to the writ petition, learned Counsel for the Respondents argued
that in certain categories the number of candidates who qualified
on the basis of the prescribed standard was less than the number
corresponding to twice the vacancies, whereas in some categories
the number exceeded such benchmark. For instance, in the
General category, against 238 posts, the permissible limit of twice
the vacancies would be 476 candidates, and exactly 476
candidates were available, thereby satisfying the prescribed ratio.
However, in the EWS category, against 43 posts, only 82
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (19 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
candidates were available as against the permissible number of
86. Similarly, in the MBC category, against 15 posts, only 22
candidates were available as against 30, and in the SC category,
66 candidates were available against the permissible number of
78. Most significantly, in the SAH category, against 6 posts, no
candidate was available in the shortlist. The aforesaid figures
demonstrate that in several reserved categories the number of
candidates satisfying the prescribed standard was insufficient even
to fill twice the number of vacancies. In such circumstances, the
relaxation mechanism contemplated under Rule 22 assumes
relevance. The rule itself recognizes that where sufficient number
of candidates belonging to any category are not available on the
basis of the general standard, the recruiting authority may apply a
relaxed standard or expand the zone of consideration so as to
ensure that a reasonable number of candidates from such
categories become available for further stages of the recruitment
process. Hence, under these circumstance, 5% additional
relaxation was granted even for the Unreserved category so as to
make good the shortfall in other categories, where even after
granting 5% additional relaxation, the Board could not find twice
the number of candidates in that categories. Hence, after granting
5% additional relaxation to unreserved category, the Board
published list of total number of 904 candidates against 444
advertised vacancies.
36. Learned counsel for respondents emphatically
submitted that after amendment of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1970
vide notification dated 18.08.2023, the limit of preparing the list
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (20 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
by including candidates twice the number of candidates has been
removed and as such, the amended Rule has rather expanded the
zone of consideration and preparation of list. Now, after
amendment, there is no limit in respect of size of the list as earlier
prescribed by the unamended provisions and now, it can even
cross the limit of twice the number of vacancies advertised while
granting 5% additional relaxation, in case the contingency so
arises.
37. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the preparation
of merit list is based on the combined marks obtained in Phase-I
and Phase-II examinations, and therefore no candidate less
meritorious than the petitioners would be selected merely on
account of the relaxation granted in permissible mistakes. On
these grounds, learned counsel prayed that the writ petitions
being devoid of merit deserve to be dismissed.
38. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on
record.
39. Since the controversy in the present matters revolve
around Rule 22 of the Rules of 1970, therefore, aforesaid Rule pre
and post amendment dated 18.08.2023 is being reproduced as
under:
“Unamended Rule 22 (prior to 18.08.2023):
“22. Recommendations of the Appointing Authority
the Commission.- (1) The Commission shall prepare
“category wise” merit list of the candidates declared
successful in the 92″Clerk Grade-II” examination,Provided that:
(i)The Commission, may to the extent of 50% of the finally
intimated vacancies keep names of the suitable candidates(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (21 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]on the reserve list. The names of such candidates may, on
receipt of requisition within 6 months from the date on
which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the
Government, in the Department of Personnel (B-1) in such
manner as the Commission may decided, be recommended
in order of merit to the Government in the Department of
Personnel (B-1) for appointment against additional
vacancies;
93
(ii) Deleted.
94
(iii) The Commission shall not recommend any candidate
who has failed to obtain a minimum of 40% marks in each
of the paper of the Phase-I and a minimum of 36% marks in
each of the paper of the Phase-II of the competitive
examination.
95
(iv) Deleted.
96
“(2)(1) Procedure for selection and Appointment of
Stenographer.- The Commission shall prepare list of
Candidates declared successful in the Stenographer’s
Competitive/Qualifying examination as the case may be.
Such list shall be sent by the Commission to the Appointing
Authority.
97
Provided that the Commission shall not recommend
any candidate who has failed to obtain a minimum of 40%
marks in each of the paper of the Phase-I and 98″a minimum
of 36% marks in the paper opted in Phase-II” of the
Competitive examination”.
99
Deleted.
(2) The lists prepared by the Commission under sub-rule (1)
above shall remain in force for a period of two years
100
“Deleted” 101″in respect of Stenographers but for Senior
Stenographers the same will remain in force till it is
exhausted”,
(3) For the Posts of Stenographer the list shall be prepared
equal to twice the number of vacancies available or likely to
be available, in the order of merit as disclosed by the marks
obtained in the examination held by the Commission as per
syllabus prescribed in Schedule II, and for the posts of
Senior Stenographers, the list shall be prepared of all the
persons who have qualified in the test held by the
Commission as per syllabus prescribed in Schedule II. The
two lists shall be forwarded to the Appointing Authority.
102
(4) Deleted.”
Amended Rule 22 (post amendment vide notification
dated 18.08.2023):
“22. Selection by the Board.-The Board shall prepare
category wise merit list of the candidates declared
successful in the Competitive/Qualifying examination, as the
case may be, for the post of Clerk Grade-II and
Stenographer. The Board shall forward the lists so prepared
to the Appointing Authority for appointment to the post
concerned:
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (22 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]Provided that the Board may to the extent of 50% of
the finally intimated vacancies keep names of the suitable
candidates on the reserve list. The names of such candidates
may, on receipt of requisition within six months from the
date on which the original list is forwarded by the Board to
the Appointing Authority in such manner as the Board may
decide, be recommended in the order of merit to the
Appointing Authority for appointment against additional
vacancies.
Provided further that,-
(i) for the the post of Clerk Grade-II, the Board shall
not recommend any candidate who has failed to obtain a
minimum of 40% marks in each of the paper of the Phase-I
and a minimum of 36% marks in each of the paper of the
Phase-ll of the competitive examination. However relaxation
in minimum marks upto 5% shall be given in each paper of
each phase of examination to the candidates belonging to
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes categories.
(ii) for the post of Stenographer,-
(a) the candidates securing minimum 40% marks in
each of the paper of Phase-I shall only be admitted to the
Phase-II subject to fifteen times the total approximate
number of vacancies to be filled in the year through the
examination but in the said range all those candidates who
secure the same marks as may be fixed by the Board for
any lower range will be admitted to the Phase-II.
(b) if the Board is of the opinion that sufficient
number of candidates belonging to reserved category are
not available on the basis of general standard for appearing
in the Phase-II, relaxed standard may be applied by the
Board for admitting candidates belonging to such reserved
category so that sufficient number of candidates in that
category are available to appear in the Phase-II. For this
purpose, the zone of consideration of 15 times the total
approximate number of vacancies shall stand relaxed.
However, candidates so additionally qualified for the Phase-
II will be eligible for selection to the posts reserved for
respective categories only.
(c) the Board will not recommend any candidate who
makes more than 20% mistakes/error in the paper opted in
Phase-II of the competitive examination for the post of
Stenographer. However relaxation in maximum permissible
mistakes/error in paper opted in Phase-II, upto 5% shall be
available to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes category
candidates.
(d) if the Board is of the opinion that sufficient
number of candidates are not available in any category,
Board may further relax maximum permissible
mistakes/error upto 5% in Phase-II.”
40. Bare comparison of the position of Rule 22 of the Rules
of 1970 pre and post amendment would make it clear that prior to
the amendment, the relevant rules contained no provision for
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (23 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
excluding candidates from the recruitment process on the basis of
excessive mistakes in the skill test; instead, they permitted
candidates numbering twice the vacancies to proceed to the
further stage. The rule-making authority has consciously
introduced the amendment to supplant this earlier mechanism
with a stringent rider, stipulating that no candidate committing
more than 20% mistakes (or 25% in the case of SC/ST
candidates) in the skill test shall be permitted for further
consideration. Such deliberate and well-considered amendments,
manifestly aimed at upholding recruitment standards, cannot be
lightly disregarded or rendered nugatory by the Board.
41. At the outset, it must be observed that the recruitment
process in question is governed by the statutory rules framed
under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the
advertisement issued by the respondents. It is a settled principle
of law that the conditions prescribed in the recruitment rules and
the advertisement are binding upon both the recruiting authority
as well as the candidates and cannot be altered during the course
of the selection process.
42. Clause 22(6)(iii) of the advertisement prescribes the
maximum permissible mistakes in the skill test as 20% for general
category candidates and 25% for candidates belonging to SC/ST
categories. Clause 22(6)(iv) of the advertisement further provides
that the Board may grant additional relaxation of up to 5% in the
permissible mistakes if it is of the opinion that sufficient number of
candidates are not available in any category.
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (24 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
43. Needless to observe that the prescription of a
maximum permissible limit of mistakes in a selection process
serves a definite and rational purpose. It operates as an objective
benchmark to ensure that only those candidates who demonstrate
a minimum level of accuracy, competence and skill are considered
suitable for selection. Such a stipulation maintains the integrity
and uniformity of the evaluation process by preventing the
selection of candidates whose performance falls below the
acceptable threshold of proficiency. The said limit, therefore,
forms part of the minimum standard prescribed for recruitment
and cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality capable of
being diluted or ignored, as doing so would defeat the very
purpose of maintaining quality and merit in the selection process.
44. Thus, the language employed in Clause 22(6)(iv) of the
advertisement clearly indicates that the grant of additional
relaxation is not a matter of routine but an exception which can be
invoked only upon formation of an opinion by the Board that
sufficient candidates are not available in a particular category.
45. It is well settled that the power to grant relaxation
under the recruitment rules is in the nature of an exception to the
normal rule of eligibility and selection, and therefore such power is
required to be exercised with circumspection and only in
exceptional circumstances. The primary object of prescribing
eligibility conditions and qualifications in recruitment rules is to
ensure that appointments to public posts are made through a fair
and uniform process based on predetermined standards. The
provision enabling relaxation is not intended to dilute or override
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (25 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
the main eligibility requirements in a routine or mechanical
manner. Such relaxation can be invoked only in situations where
the object of the recruitment cannot be achieved through the
ordinary process, namely where suitable candidates fulfilling the
prescribed conditions are otherwise not available. If relaxation is
granted indiscriminately despite the availability of eligible
candidates who satisfy the prescribed criteria without seeking such
relaxation, it would defeat the very purpose of the recruitment
rules and result in arbitrary exclusion of meritorious candidates.
Therefore, the power of relaxation must be exercised sparingly, for
valid and recorded reasons, and strictly in aid of the recruitment
process rather than in a manner that undermines the rights of
candidates who are otherwise fully eligible under the rules.
46. The expression “sufficient number of candidates”
occurring in Rule 22 of the Rules of 1970 has to be interpreted in
the context of the scheme of the recruitment rules and the object
sought to be achieved thereby. The said expression cannot be
read in isolation so as to permit the preparation of an unlimited or
enlarged list of candidates. Rather, it must necessarily be
correlated with the number of vacancies advertised in the
recruitment process. The purpose of requiring a “sufficient number
of candidates” is only to ensure that adequate number of
candidates are available to fill the notified vacancies strictly within
the framework contemplated by the rules. The expression cannot
be stretched to justify the preparation of a list far exceeding the
notified vacancies by including ineligible candidates, whether for
the purpose of maintaining a reserve list or for preparing a list
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (26 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]twice the number of vacancies. If such an interpretation were to
be accepted, it would defeat the very scheme of Rule 22 of the
Rules of 1970 and, in particular, render proviso (ii) (c) of Rule 22
of the Rules of 1970 otiose, which clearly regulates the extent to
which candidates can be recommended in the given contingencies.
It is a settled principle of statutory interpretation that a provision
must be construed in a manner that gives effect to every part of
the rule and avoids rendering any clause redundant. Therefore,
the expression “sufficient number of candidates” must be
understood as referring only to the number reasonably necessary
in relation to the advertised vacancies, and not as an enabling
provision to expand the select list beyond what is contemplated
under the rules.
47. This Court finds that the method of awarding different
marks in Phase-I and Phase-II of the examination and to prepare
the merit list on the basis of sum total of the marks awarded in
Phase-I and Phase-II examination makes it clear that such phases
of examination cannot be said to be simple shortlisting
examination and is rather a composite examination, carrying
substantial determinative value for the marks of each phase of
examination for preparation of merit list, hence, in the light of
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajasthan High Court & Another vs. Rajat Yadav & Others,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2931, the respondent-Board was required
to prepare category-wise list after the phase II examination.
48. The expression “any category” occurring in the relevant
rule proviso (ii) (c) of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1970 cannot be
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (27 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
interpreted to mean all categories collectively, i.e., both reserved
as well as unreserved categories taken together. Such an
interpretation would run contrary to the scheme of reservation
and the structured manner in which vacancies are distributed
across different categories in the recruitment process. The phrase
“any category” must necessarily be understood in its contextual
sense to refer to a particular category in which a shortfall of
eligible or selected candidates is noticed. The purpose of using the
said expression is to enable the recruiting authority to address a
deficiency arising in a specific category so that the vacancies
earmarked for that category may not remain unfilled. If the
expression “any category” were to be construed as including all
categories simultaneously, it would defeat the category-wise
framework of selection and reservation, and may lead to arbitrary
adjustments across categories, which is impermissible under the
established principles governing public employment. Therefore, a
purposive interpretation of the rule requires that the expression
“any category” be read as referring to a specific category where a
shortage of candidates exists, and not as a reference to all
categories collectively.
49. It is a settled principle of statutory interpretation that a
rule or provision must be construed in its entirety and in the
context of the scheme of the statute or rules, and not in isolation
or in a piecemeal manner. Reading a provision selectively or by
isolating certain expressions from the rest of the rule may lead to
a distorted understanding of the legislative intent. The true import
of a rule can be gathered only when all its parts are harmoniously
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (28 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
read together so as to give effect to the object sought to be
achieved by the rule-making authority. Each clause of the rule
must therefore be interpreted in a manner that complements the
other provisions and advances the purpose of the rule, rather than
rendering any part redundant or inconsistent. Thus, a holistic and
contextual reading of the rule is imperative in order to ascertain
the real intention of the rule-making authority and to ensure that
the scheme of the rules operates in a coherent and meaningful
manner.
50. When Clause 22 of the advertisement is read in its
entirety, it becomes evident that the recruitment process
envisages a structured mechanism for evaluating merit and
shortlisting candidates at different stages. The relaxation clause
cannot therefore be interpreted in a manner which defeats the
very object of maintaining minimum standards of competence in
the skill test.
51. In the present case, the material placed on record
through the additional affidavit demonstrates that as many as 643
candidates in the Non-TSP area had qualified the skill test within
the originally prescribed limits of permissible mistakes. When the
total number of vacancies in the Non-TSP area is only 444, the
availability of 643 candidates itself indicates that sufficient number
of candidates were available without any relaxation. Although
facts and figures given by the either side have been disputed by
the other side, yet prima facie, it comes out that the category-
wise data placed on record also indicates that the number of
qualified candidates in General (303), OBC (53), EWS (158),
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (29 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
SC(71), ST(45) and MBC (13) categories (in total 643) exceeded
the number of vacancies available in the respective categories
even without granting additional relaxation.
52. More importantly, the expression “sufficient number of
candidates” occurring in Clause 22(6)(iv) of the advertisement
cannot be interpreted to mean twice the number of vacancies as
suggested by the respondents. The said expression must
necessarily be correlated with the number of vacancies advertised
in each category. Any interpretation which enlarges the meaning
of the expression beyond the number of vacancies would render
the scheme of the rule redundant and defeat the object of
prescribing a maximum permissible limit of mistakes in the skill
test.
53. The manner in which the relaxation has been granted
also raises serious concerns. The material on record suggests that
the respondents first granted relaxation to reserved categories
and thereafter extended the same relaxation to general category
candidates in order to achieve a numerical target based on the
Department of Personnel circular. Such an approach effectively
converts an exceptional provision into a routine mechanism and
undermines the minimum standards prescribed for the skill test.
54. It is equally important to note that the recruitment in
question is for the post of Stenographer where proficiency in
shorthand and transcription is an essential requirement. The
purpose of prescribing a maximum permissible limit of mistakes is
to ensure that only candidates possessing adequate skill are
selected. Granting relaxation despite availability of sufficient
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (30 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
candidates defeats this objective and dilutes the standards of the
examination.
55. It is well settled that wherever the rules confer a
discretion upon the Selection Board to grant relaxation upon
formation of an opinion, such opinion cannot be arbitrary or
implicit. The same is required to be formed on the basis of
objective consideration and must be recorded in writing, reflecting
due application of mind to the relevant rule and the legislative
intent underlying the provision. The power of relaxation, being an
exception to the general rule prescribing eligibility conditions,
must be exercised strictly within the scope and extent
contemplated by the rules. It cannot be invoked in a manner that
dilutes or defeats the fundamental purpose of prescribing
minimum standards for recruitment, for otherwise the very
scheme of the rules would stand frustrated.
56. The respondents, in their reply to the writ petition,
have sought to justify the grant of additional relaxation by
contending that sufficient number of candidates were not available
within the originally prescribed limits and, therefore, in view of the
circular dated 18.10.2021 issued by the Department of Personnel,
the Selection Board formed an opinion to call candidates for
document verification to the extent of twice the number of
advertised vacancies. Since such justification formed the principal
basis of the defence set up by the respondents, this Court
considered it necessary to examine whether the said decision was
actually preceded by any deliberation or consideration reflected in
the official record. Accordingly, at the time of reserving the
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (31 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
judgment, this Court directed learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Board to produce the relevant record for the perusal
of this Court in order to ascertain the manner in which such
opinion had been formed by the Board. Accordingly, record was
made available for perusal of this Court, and this court finds that
decision to accord additional relaxation of 5% has been granted by
the Board in following manner:
“jktLFkku deZpkjh p;u cksMZ
RAJASTHAN STAFF SELECTION BOARDdk;kZy; fVIi.kh
51 jktLFkku lfpoky; ea=kyf;d lsok fu;e&1970] jktLFkku v/khuLFk ,oa
ea=kyf;d lsok fu;e&1999 ,oa jktLFkku vuqlwfpr {ks= v/khuLFk] ea=kyf;d ,oa
prqFkZ Js.kh lsok ¼HkrhZ ,oa vU; lsok ‘krsZa½ fu;e&2014 ds vUrxZr Øe’k% ‘kklu
lfpoky; ,oa iz’kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx ds ek/;e ls jkT; ljdkj ds v/khuLFk
foHkkxksa@dk;kZy;ksa ds fy, ‘kh?kzfyfid@futh lgk;d xzsM& II la;qDr lh/kh
HkrhZ&2024 ds fuEurkfydk vuqlkj inksa ij HkrhZ esa lfEefyr vH;fFkZ;ksa ls fu/kkZfjr
izi= esa cksMZ }kjk vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= vkeaf=r fd, tkdj foKkiu la[;k
07@2024 fnukad 26-02-2024 rFkk la’kks/ku fnukad 16-12-2024 tkjh x;k FkkAØ-la- foHkkx dk uke in dk uke NTSP TSP Total
1. ‘kklu lfpoky; ‘kh?kzfyfid 194 – 194
2. jkT; ds v/khuLFk futh lgk;d 250 26 276
foHkkx@dk;kZy; xzsM&II
dqy in 444 26 47052 mDr inksa ds yxHkx 15 xq.kk vH;fFkZ;ksa dks bl ijh{kk ds Hkkx&f}rh;
¼Qst&II½ ¼Vad.k ,oa vk’kqfyfi ijh{k.k½ gsrq vLFkkbZ :i ls fnukad 23-12-2024 dks
lwphc) fd;k x;k FkkA bu lwphc) vH;fFkZ;ksa dh Hkkx&f}rh; ¼Qst& II½ ¼Vad.k ,oa
vk’kqfyfi ijh{k.k½ dk vk;kstu fnukad 19-03-2025 ,oa 20-03-2025 dks fd;k x;k
FkkA rRi’pkr fnukad 10-04-2025 dks Hkkx&f}rh; ¼Qst& II½ ¼Vad.k ,oa vk’kqfyfi
ijh{k.k½ dks fujLr dj fnukad 29-06-2025 dks nks ikfj;ksa esa iqu% vk;ksftr fd;k x;k
FkkA53 blh Øe esa vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk vkWuykbZu vkosnu QkeZ esa ntZ lwpukvksa ,oa
fyf[kr ijh{kk ¼Qst&I½ rFkk Qst&II ¼Vad.k ,oa vk’kqfyfi ijh{k.k½ nksuksa esa izkIrkadksa
ds vk/kkj ij vH;fFkZ;ksa dh Js.khokj ,oa ojh;rkuqlkj vLFkkbZ :i ls lwfp;k¡ rS;kj
dh xbZ gSA ijh{kk ds Hkkx&f}rh; ¼Vad.k ,oa vk’kqfyfi ijh{k.k½ esa izkIr vkosnuksa]
ijh{kk frfFk] ijh{kk esa mifLFkr vH;fFkZ;ksa dh la[;k ,oa vU; fooj.k fuEu izdkj gS%&• ijh{kk esa dqy vad%& 300 ¼Qst& I ¼fyf[kr ijh{kk½ ds dqy vad 200
¼isij&izFke 100 vad rFkk isij&f}rh; 100 vad½ ,oa Qst& II ¼fgUnh vkSj
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (32 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]vaxzsth Vad.k ,oa vk’kqfyfi ijh{k.k½ esa dqy vad 100 ¼vaxzsth vk’kqfyfi
ijh{k.k&100 vad ;k fgUnh vk’kqfyfi ijh{k.k&100½½
• Hkkx&f}rh; gsrq lwphc) vH;FkhZ%& 3315
• Hkkx&f}rh; ¼Vad.k ,oa vk’kqfyfi ijh{k.k½ esa mifLFkr vH;FkhZ %& 2774
• Hkkx&f}rh; ¼Vad.k ,oa vk’kqfyfi ijh{k.k½ esa vuqifLFkr vH;FkhZ%& 541
• Hkkx&f}rh; ¼Vad.k ,oa vk’kqfyfi ijh{k.k½ esa mÙkh.kZ vH;FkhZ %& 904
• Hkkx&f}rh; ¼Vad.k ,oa vk’kqfyfi ijh{k.k½ esa vuqÙkh.kZ vH;FkhZ%& 1870
•
54 cksMZ ds vkns’k%& Øekad i12¼3½ RSSB/ fu-l-@v/;
{[email protected]&funsZ’k@2020@656 fnukad 18-01-2024 ds vuqlkj ek0 lnL; MkW-
fjiqUt; flag dh v/;{krk esa ijh{kk ifj.kke lfefr ds lnL; lfpo ¼milfpo
ijh{kk½ }kjk mDr lh/kh HkrhZ dh foHkkx }kjk cksMZ dks izsf”kr vFkZuk o cksMZ dh 328 oh
cSBd esa fy, x, fu.kZ; dh ikyuk esa Hkkx&f}rh; ¼Vad.k ,oa vk’kqfyfi ijh{k.k½ esa
ik= gq, vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fyf[kr ijh{kk ¼Qst& I½ ,oa Vad.k ,oa vk’kqfyfi ijh{k.k
¼Qst&II½ nksuksa esa izkIr vadksa ds vk/kkj Js.khokj ,oa ojh;rkuqlkj vLFkkbZ
lwfp;k¡ ifj{kk ifj.kke lfefr ds le{k izLrqr dh xbZA lfefr }kjk bu lwfp;ksa dks
ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA mä vLFkkbZ lwfp;ka fuEukafdr fcUnqvksa dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq,
rS;kj djokbZ xbZA
1- mDr ijh{kk esa izkIrkadksa dh x.kuk 300 vadksa ds vk/kkj ij dh xbZ gSA ftlesa
Qst&I ¼fyf[kr ijh{kk½ ds dqy vad 200 ¼isij&izFke 100 vad rFkk isij&f}rh;
100 vad½ ,oa Qst& II ¼fgUnh ;k vaxzsth Vad.k ,oa vk’kqfyfi ijh{k.k½ esa dqy vad
100 ¼vaxzsth vk’kqfyfi ijh{k.k&100 vad ;k fgUnh vk’kqfyfi ijh{k.k&100½ fu/kkZfjr
gSaA
2- vH;fFkZ;ksa ds vadks dh x.kuk ijh{kk ds Qst& I ,oa Qst& II nksuksa esa izkIr vadks
ds vk/kkj ij dh xbZ gSA
3- HkrhZ ijh{kk ds lsok fu;eksa ds vUrxZr Qst& I ,oa Qst& II nksuksa esa ik=
vH;fFkZ;ksa dh Js.khokj ,ao ojh;rkuqlkj vLFkkbZ lwfp;ka rS;kj dh xbZ gSA
4- mDr lh/kh HkrhZ ds foKkiu ds fcUnq la[;k 22¼6½ ¼ i½ ds vuqlkj Qst& I ds
izR;sd iz’u i= esa U;wure 40 izfr’kr vad vkSj fcUnq la[;k 22¼6½ ¼ iii½ ds vuqlkj
Qst& II esa oSdfYid iz’u i= esa vuqKkr 20 izfr’kr ls vf/kd Hkwy@xyrh rFkkfi
vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr izoxZ ds vH;fFkZ;ksa dks Qst& II esa oSdfYid
iz’u i= esa vf/kdre vuqKkr Hkwy@xyrh esa 5 izfr’kr rd f’kfFkyu fd;k tk;sxk
fu/kkZfjr gSA foKfIr ds fcUnw la[;k 22¼6½ ds lc fcUnw ¼ iv½ ds vuqlkj Qst&II esa
lHkh laoxZ ds vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vuqKkr Hkwy@xyrh esa 5 izfr’kr dk vfrfjDr f’kfFkyu
fn;k x;k gSA bl izdkj vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr@lgfj;k ,oa HkwriwoZ
lSfudksa dks vuqKkr Hkwy@xyrh dqy 10 izfr’kr rd f’kfFkyu fn;k x;k gSA
5- Qst& II ¼fgUnh ;k vaxzsth Vad.k ,oa vk’kqfyfi ijh{k.k½ esa dqy vad 100 ¼vaxzsth
vk’kqfyfi ijh{k.k&100 vad ;k fgUnh vk’kqfyfi ijh{k.k&100½ fu/kkZfjr gSA
6- ijh{kk vuqHkkx ls izkIr fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj bl ijh{kk esa vuqfpr lk/kuksa o udy
djus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa lwpuk ‘kwU; gSA
7- fof/k vuqHkkx ls izkIr fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj mDr HkrhZ dk vafre ijh{kk ifj.kke ,lch
flfoy fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 4760@2024 ds v/;/khu jgsxkA
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (33 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
8- fof/k vuqHkkx ls izkIr lwpuk vuqlkj cksMZ }kjk vkfnukad rd izfrcfU/kr
(Debarred) vH;FkhZ dh lwph esa vafdr dksbZ Hkh vH;FkhZ bl ijh{kk esa ‘kkfey gksuk
ugha ik;k x;k gSA
9- mä ijh{kk ds Hkkx&f}rh; ¼Vad.k ,oa vk’kqfyfi ijh{k.k½ ijh{kk esa ‘kCn orZuh]
vfrfjDr ‘kCn] NwVs gq;s ‘kCn] vuqRrfjr ‘kCn dks iw.kZ Hkwy@xyrh rFkk fojke fpUg]
fey gq;s ‘kCn] foHkkftr ‘kCn rFkk nh?kZ@y?kq ‘kCnks dks v)Z Hkwy@xyrh ekuk x;k
gSA
55 bl izdkj ‘kh?kzfyfid@futh lgk;d xzsM& II la;qDr lh/kh HkrhZ&2024 esa dqy
470 fjä inksa ds fo:) 904 mÙkh.kZ vH;fFkZ;ksa dks Js.khokj o ojh;rkuqlkj lwphc)
fd;k x;k gSA ;g ojh;rk lwph vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk vkWuykbZu vkosnu QkeZ esa ntZ
lwpukvksa ,oa fyf[kr ijh{kk ¼Qst&I½ ,oa Vad.k ,oa vk’kqfyfi ijh{k.k ¼Qst& II ½ nksuksa
esa izkIrkadksa ds vk/kkj ij rS;kj dh xbZ gSA bu vH;fFkZ;ksa esa ls ;Fks”V la[;k esa
nLrkost lR;kiu lacaf/kr foHkkx }kjk fd;k tk,xkA
56 Js.khokj ,oa ojh;rkuqlkj rS;kj lwfp;ksa dks cksMZ ls vuqeksnu mijkar cksMZ dh
osclkbZV ij izdkf’kr djus ,oa foHkkx dks Hksts tkus dh vuq’ka”kk dh tkrh gSA ”
57. Upon perusal of the original record produced before the
Court, particularly, the note-sheets relating to the decision-
making process, this Court finds that there is absolutely no
reference whatsoever to circular dated 18.10.2021 issued by the
Department of Personnel. The record neither discloses any
discussion or deliberation regarding the applicability of the said
circular, nor is there any indication that the Board had consciously
taken a decision to call candidates to the extent of twice the
number of vacancies on the basis of the said circular. The entire
record placed before this Court is conspicuously silent on this
aspect. In the absence of any such reference in the official record,
the assertion made in the reply filed by the respondents that the
decision was taken in view of the aforesaid circular cannot be
accepted. It is, thus, evident that the stand taken in the reply is
not borne out from the record of the decision-making process. The
defence sought to be raised by the respondents, being contrary to
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (34 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
the record itself, is therefore, liable to be rejected as baseless and
unsustainable.
58. That apart, a perusal of the note-sheets further reveals
that although the Board recorded a decision to grant additional
relaxation of 5% in permissible mistakes by invoking proviso (ii)
(d) of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1970, the said decision appears to
have been taken in a wholly mechanical and casual manner. The
note-sheets do not disclose any discussion regarding the number
of candidates who had already qualified within the originally
prescribed limits of permissible mistakes, nor do they indicate any
category-wise assessment of availability of candidates. There is
also no analysis reflected in the record as to whether there existed
any shortfall of candidates in any particular category which would
justify invocation of the relaxation clause. The record is entirely
silent on these crucial aspects which ought to have formed the
basis for the formation of an opinion under Rule 22(ii)(d) of the
Rules of 1970.
59. It is significant to note that the language of Rule 22(ii)
(d) of the Rules of 1970 contemplates that the power to grant
relaxation can be exercised only after the Selection Board forms
an opinion that sufficient number of candidates are not available in
any category. The formation of such opinion cannot be an empty
formality or a mere eyewash; it must be founded upon objective
consideration of relevant material and a proper analysis of the
factual position regarding availability of eligible candidates. Where
the rule itself makes the formation of an opinion a condition
precedent for exercise of the power of relaxation, the decision
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (35 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
must necessarily reflect application of mind to the relevant factors,
including the number of candidates already available within the
prescribed limits and the existence of any actual shortfall in a
particular category.
60. In the present case, however, the record placed before
this Court does not indicate that any such exercise was
undertaken by the Board prior to granting relaxation. The decision
appears to have been taken abruptly without any objective
assessment of the factual position. Such a mechanical exercise of
discretion is clearly inconsistent with the requirement of the rule
and cannot be sustained in law. When the statute or the rules
require formation of an opinion based on relevant considerations,
the authority concerned must demonstrate through the record
that the decision was preceded by due deliberation and application
of mind. In the absence of such material, the decision granting
relaxation cannot be said to be a valid exercise of the power
conferred under Rule 22(ii)(d) of the Rules of 1970. In view of the
above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
respondents were not justified in granting the additional relaxation
of 5% in the permissible mistakes in Phase-II of the examination.
The conditions stipulated in Clause 22(6)(iv) of the advertisement
for invoking such relaxation were not satisfied as sufficient
number of candidates were already available within the original
permissible limits.
61. Notwithstanding the aforesaid observation, assuming
for a moment that the Respondent Government took a policy
decision in the form of circular dated 18.10.2021, then to consider
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (36 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
as to whether such policy decision is in consonance with the
prevailing Rule or not?, this court proceeded further to examine
the said circular dated 18.10.2021 in the context of the Rule.
Relevant part of the circular is extracted hereunder:
“jktLFkku ljdkj
dkfeZd ¼d&2½ foHkkx
Øekad% i- 7¼1½dkfeZd@d&2@2019 t;iqj] fnukad 18-10-2021
ifji=fo”k;%& HkrhZ izfØ;k ds laca/k esa funsZ’kA
HkfrZ;ksa dks fu;fer ,oa le;c) :i ls lEiUu djus rFkk HkrhZ izfØ;k
dks lqn`<+ djus ds fy, bl foHkkx ds lela[;d ifji= fnukad 05-04-2021
ds vfrØe.k esa fuEukuqlkj funsZ’k tkjh fd;s tkrs gSa%&1- fjfDr;ksa dk fu/kkZj.k ,ao HkrhZ vFkZuk&
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx2- HkrhZ dSys.Mj ,oa foKkiu izdk’ku%&
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx3- ijh{kk ifj.kke] nLrkost lR;kiu ,oa p;u lwph vfHkLrkouk
ifj.kke tkjh gksus ds i’pkr nLrkost lR;kiu ,oa p;u lwph dh
vfHkLrkouk iwjh rjg ls vk;ksx@cksMZ@vU; laLFkk dh vkarfjd dk;Zokgh gS
rFkkfi vk;ksx@cksMZ }kjk nLrkost lR;kiu ds dk;Z esa iz’kklfud foHkkxksa dk
Hkh lg;ksx fy;k tkrk gSA vr% ijh{kk ifj.kke] nLrkost lR;kiu ,oa p;u
lwph vfHkLrkouk ds dk;Z dks le;c) :i ds lEiUu djus ds fy,
fuEukuqlkj dk;Zokgh lqfuf’pr dh tk;s%&
3-1 ijh{kk ifj.kke tkjh djuk HkrhZ laLFkk dk fo’ks”kkf/kdkj gS rFkkfi HkrhZ
laLFkk ls ;g visf{kr gS fd vafre ifj.kke dks tkjh fd;s tkus ls iwoZ gh
izfØ;k@fu;eksa@ik=rk@iz’ui= laca/kh vkifRr;kW] ;fn dksbZ gks] rks mudk
fuLrkj.k djrs gq, ifj.kke dks =qfVjfgr tkjh fd;k tkos ,oa U;k;ky; vkns’k
dks NksMdj ;FkklEHko la’kksf/kr ifj.kke tkjh ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg,A3-2 ijh{kk ifj.kke tkjh gksus ds i’pkr~ nLrkost lR;kiu dh izfØ;k esa cgqr
vf/kd le; yxrk gSA dbZ ckj vuqifLFkr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds dkj.k esfjV ,ao
ijh{kk ifj.kke esa ifjorZu gksrk gS rFkk p;u lwph dbZ pj.kksa esa izsf”kr dh
tkrh gSs] ifj.kkeLo:i HkrhZ iw.kZ gksus esa foyac gksrk gSA bu lcds en~nsutj
HkrhZ ,tsalh }kjk nLrkost lR;kiu gsrq ;Fks”V la[;k ¼fjfDr;ksa ds yxHkx
U;wure 2 xq.kk½ esa vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vkaef=r fd;k tk, rkfd eq[; lwph ,oa
vkjf{kr lwph gsrq ;Fkko’;d vH;FkhZ miyC/k gks ldsaA3-3 HkrhZ ,tsUlh }kjk HkrhZ ijh{kk dk vUrfje ifj.kke tkjh djus ds i’pkr~
nLrkost lR;kiu dk dk;Z ,d fu/kkZfjr le; lhek&vf/kdre 45 fnol] ds
vanj fd;k tkuk pkfg,] ftlesa izFke volj ij vuqifLFkr jgus okys
vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fn, tkus okys iqu% volj dh le;kof/k ‘kkfey gSA fjfDr;ksa(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (37 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]dh la[;k cgqr vf/kd gksus dh fLFkfr esa vko’;d gksus ij bls 15 fnol vksj
c<k;k tk ldrk gSA3-4 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
3-5 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”
62. Rule 22 of the Rules of 1970, in its erstwhile form (prior
to amendment), provided for preparation of a list of candidates,
after Phase-II examination, to the extent of twice the number of
vacancies advertised. However, the said provision has
subsequently been substituted by way of amendment, whereby
the rule-making authority consciously introduced a different
mechanism by prescribing a maximum permissible limit of
mistakes in the skill test of the Phase-II examination. The
legislative intent behind the amendment is thus manifest, namely,
to depart from the earlier system of preparing the list on the basis
of a mathematical formula of twice the number of vacancies and
instead to regulate eligibility through an objective benchmark of
permissible mistakes. Such a deliberate and considered
amendment to the statutory rules cannot be diluted or
circumvented by the respondents by placing reliance upon an
administrative circular issued by the Department of Personnel
providing for preparation of a list of candidates twice the number
of vacancies in anticipation of possible contingencies at the stage
of document verification. Recourse to such a circular would, in
effect, amount to undoing the conscious amendment carried out
under the Rules, which is impermissible in law, as administrative
instructions cannot override, modify, or defeat the mandate of
statutory rules.
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (38 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
63. Even otherwise, this Court finds that there exists no
rational or legal correlation between the circular dated 18.10.2021
issued by the Department of Personnel and the mandate contained
in proviso (ii)(d) of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1970 governing the
recruitment process. As has been observed hereinabove, proviso
(ii)(d) of Rule 22(iv) of the Rules of 1970 specifically encapsulates
that relaxation in the permissible mistakes in the skill test may be
granted only up to a maximum limit of 5% and not beyond that.
The rule, thus, places a clear upper cap on the extent of relaxation
that can be granted in the evaluation of the skill test. In contrast,
the circular relied upon by the respondents merely provides that
candidates to the extent of at least twice the number of advertised
vacancies should be called for document verification or further
stages of the recruitment process. The object, scope and
operational field of the two provisions are therefore fundamentally
different.
64. In order to appreciate the incongruity between the two,
it may be useful to examine the situation by way of illustration.
Suppose, for instance, that against 444 advertised vacancies, only
200 candidates fall within the zone of consideration by satisfying
the prescribed limit of 20% permissible mistakes for unreserved
candidates and 25% permissible mistakes for candidates
belonging to SC/ST categories. Even if the Selection Board was to
exercise the power under Rule 22(iv) of the Rules of 1970 and
grant the maximum permissible relaxation of an additional 5% in
mistakes and assuming that only 50 more candidates fall within
the extended zone of consideration, the total number of eligible
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (39 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
candidates would still be only 250. In such a scenario, the rule
itself would not permit the inclusion of any further candidates in
the merit list beyond those who fall within the permissible limit of
mistakes even after the maximum relaxation allowed under the
rule.
65. Similarly, even in a relatively better hypothetical
situation where, against 444 advertised vacancies, 400 candidates
satisfy the original criteria of 20% or 25% permissible mistakes
and, upon granting the additional relaxation of 5%, another 100
candidates become eligible, the total number of candidates who
could legitimately fall within the zone of consideration would be
500. However, even in such a situation, the number of candidates
who could be considered cannot exceed those who satisfy the
maximum permissible limits prescribed under the rule. The rule
itself imposes an upper cap on relaxation and does not
contemplate any further enlargement of the zone of consideration
beyond that limit.
66. On the other hand, the circular relied upon by the
respondents contemplates calling candidates to the extent of at
least twice the number of vacancies advertised. In the context of
the present recruitment, such a benchmark would require calling
at least 888 candidates against 444 vacancies. It is evident that in
the hypothetical situations discussed above, achieving such a
benchmark would be impossible without breaching the maximum
permissible limit of mistakes prescribed under Rule 22(iv) of the
Rules of 1970. In other words, compliance with the circular would
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (40 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
necessarily require dilution of the upper cap prescribed under the
rule.
67. This clearly demonstrates that the circular dated
18.10.2021 cannot operate in harmony with the restrictions
imposed under Rule 22(iv) of the Rules of 1970. The rule places a
substantive limitation on the extent to which relaxation can be
granted in the skill test, whereas the circular proceeds on an
entirely different premise relating to the number of candidates to
be called for document verification. Where the statutory rules
impose a specific ceiling or restriction, the same cannot be
circumvented or diluted by reliance upon administrative
instructions.
68. In the case of R. Ranjith Singh & Others (supra),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“19. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has
demonstrated before this Court that the Appellant R. Ranjith
Singh has secured 79.10 marks and he was the first rank
holder and one Santhakumari who was a departmental
candidate has secured 69.27 marks; however, Santhakumari
has been placed over and above the persons who have
obtained higher marks and in fact all the departmental
candidates have obtained less marks than the open category
candidates under the direct requirement quota and have
been placed over and above the persons who have obtained
more marks only because they are the in-service
candidates. In the considered opinion of this Court, such an
action on the part of the Respondent State is against the
settled canons of law. In respect of fixation of seniority of
direct recruitments, the unamended rule i.e Rule 25 was
very clear which provided for fixation of seniority with
reference to the rank assigned by the appointing authority in
the list of selected candidates. It is unfortunate that the
State Government has amended Rule 25 by G.O. dated
21.11.2017 by giving it retrospective effect i.e. with effect
from 13.07.1995. The State Government has certainly
issued various executive directions from time to time for
appointment under the direct recruitment quota providing
reservation to in-service candidates to the extent of 20%;
however, the rules were never amended till 21.11.2017. It is
a well settled proposition of law that executive instructions
cannot supplant the statutory rules. They can
supplement/clarify the statutory rules. In the present case,
the executive instructions issued from time to time have in(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (41 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]fact supplanted the statutory rules and such a process is
unheard of in the field of service jurisprudence.
20. This Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v.
G.S. Dall and Flour Mills, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 150 has held
that executive instructions can supplement a Statute or
cover areas which the Statute does not extend. They cannot
run contrary to the statutory provisions or whittle down their
effect. In the present case, the G.O. dated 13.07.1995, G.O.
dated 24.10.1996 and G.O. dated 10.06.2009 are executive
instructions and based upon the executive instructions, the
statutory provisions as contained under the statutory rules
could not have been made applicable as has been done in
the present case.
21. This Court in the case of Jaiveer Singh v. The State of
Uttarakhand, 2023 INSC 1024 has held as under:
“34. It can thus be seen that it is a trite law that the
Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by
administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any
particular point, it can fill up the gaps and supplement the
rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules
already framed. It is a settled proposition of law that an
authority cannot issue orders/office memorandum/executive
instructions in contravention of the statutory rules.
However, instructions can be issued only to supplement the
statutory rules but not to supplant it.
This Court has again held in the aforesaid case that the
Government cannot issue executive instructions in
contravention of the statutory rules.”
69. Similarly, in the case of Jaiveer Singh & Others
(supra), it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as
under:
“44. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations
of this Court in ESI Corpn. v. Union of India, (2022) 11 SCC
392, wherein this Court has referred to its earlier judgments
including that of a Constitution Bench: (SCC pp. 403-405,
paras 15-17)“15. A Constitution Bench in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of
Rajasthan 1967 SCC OnLine SC 16 considered the
applicability of the letters issued by the Government of
India detailing the administrative practice for promotions,
against the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority)
Rules, 1954. The Constitution Bench held that: (SCC
OnLine SC para 7)‘7. We proceed to consider the next contention of Mr
N.C. Chatterjee that in the absence of any statutory
rules governing promotions to selection grade posts the
Government cannot issue administrative instructions
and such administrative instructions cannot impose any
restrictions not found in the Rules already framed. We
are unable to accept this argument as correct. It is true
that there is no specific provision in the Rules laying
down the principle of promotion of junior or senior(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (42 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]grade officers to selection grade posts. But that does
not mean that till statutory rules are framed in this
behalf the Government cannot issue administrative
instructions regarding the principle to be followed in
promotions of the officers concerned to selection grade
posts. It is true that Government cannot amend or
supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions,
but if the rules are silent on any particular point
Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the
rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the
rules already framed.’
16. In Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013)
16 SCC 147 a two-Judge Bench of this Court speaking
in the context of service regulations governing a
departmental enquiry reiterated that an Office Order or
office memorandum cannot contravene statutory rules.
B.S. Chauhan, J. noted the position in law in the
following terms: (SCC p. 172, para 59)’59. The law laid down above has consistently been
followed and it is a settled proposition of law that
an authority cannot issue orders/office
memorandum/executive instructions in
contravention of the statutory rules. However,
instructions can be issued only to supplement the
statutory rules but not to supplant it. Such
instructions should be subservient to the statutory
provisions. (Vide Union of India v. Majji
Jangamayya, (1977) 1 SCC 606, P.D. Aggarwal v.
State of U.P., (1987) 3 SCC 622, Paluru
Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC
541, C. Rangaswamaiah v. Karnataka Lokayukta,
(1998) 6 SCC 66 and Joint Action Committee of Air
Line Pilots’ Assn. of India v. DG of Civil Aviation,
(2011) 5 SCC 435.)’
17. In P.D. Aggarwal v. State of U.P., (1987) 3 SCC 622
a two-Judge Bench of this Court declined to grant
primacy to an office memorandum issued by the
Government of Uttar Pradesh which purportedly
amended the method of recruitment of Assistant Civil
Engineers in the U.P. Public Service Commission without
amending the relevant regulations. The Court held:
(SCC p. 640, para 20)
’20. The office memorandum dated 7-12-1961
which purports to amend the United Provinces
Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch)
Class II Rules, 1936 in our opinion cannot override,
amend or supersede statutory rules. This
memorandum is nothing but an administrative
order or instruction and as such it cannot amend or
supersede the statutory rules by adding something
therein as has been observed by this Court in Sant
Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan. Moreover the
benefits that have been conferred on the
temporary Assistant Engineers who have become
members of the service after being selected by the
Public Service Commission in accordance with the
service rules are entitled to have their seniority
reckoned in accordance with the provisions of Rule
23 as it was then, from the date of their becoming(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (43 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]member of the service, and this cannot be taken
away by giving retrospective effect to the Rules of
1969 and 1971 as it is arbitrary, irrational and not
reasonable.’ “
(emphasis in original)
45. It can thus be seen that it is a trite law that the
Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by
administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any
particular point, it can fill up the gaps and supplement the
rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules
already framed. It is a settled proposition of law that an
authority cannot issue orders/office memorandum/executive
instructions in contravention of the statutory rules.
However, instructions can be issued only to supplement the
statutory rules but not to supplant it.”
70. In the case of Union of India & Another vs. Ashok
Kumar Aggarwal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down
the following principles:
“58. A Constitution Bench of this Court while dealing with a
similar issue in respect of executive instructions in Sant Ram
Sharma v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 1910, held: (AIR
p. 1914, para 7)“7. … It is true that the Government cannot amend or
supersede statutory rules by administrative
instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular
point the Government can fill up the gaps and
supplement the rules and issue instructions not
inconsistent with the rules already framed.”
59. The law laid down above has consistently been followed
and it is a settled proposition of law that an authority cannot
issue orders/office memorandum/executive instructions in
contravention of the statutory rules. However, instructions
can be issued only to supplement the statutory rules but not
to supplant it. Such instructions should be subservient to the
statutory provisions. (Vide Union of India v. Majji
Jangamayya (1977) 1 SCC 606, P.D. Aggarwal v. State of
U.P. (1987) 3 SCC 622, Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of
India (1989) 2 SCC 541, C. Rangaswamaiah v. Karnataka
Lokayukta (1998) 6 SCC 66 and Joint Action Committee of
Air Line Pilots’ Assn. of India v. DG of Civil Aviation (2011) 5
SCC 435)
60. Similarly, a Constitution Bench of this Court, in Naga
People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India
(1998) 2 SCC 109, held that the executive instructions have
binding force provided the same have been issued to fill up
the gap between the statutory provisions and are not
inconsistent with the said provisions.”
71. Therefore, even otherwise, the circular relied upon by
the respondents cannot be said to be in consonance with the
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (44 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
recruitment rules governing the present selection. Application of
such a circular in the manner suggested by the respondents would
effectively frustrate the very object of the rule by compelling the
Selection Board to enlarge the zone of consideration beyond the
maximum limit of relaxation permitted under the rules. Such an
interpretation would render the statutory restriction meaningless
and cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, the reliance placed
by the respondents on the circular dated 18.10.2021 for justifying
the impugned relaxation is wholly misplaced and untenable.
72. This court finds that even where the rules contemplate
the preparation of a reserve or waiting list in the course of a
recruitment process, such list can be drawn only from amongst
those candidates who have successfully met the prescribed
minimum eligibility criteria and standards of selection. The object
of maintaining a waiting list is merely to fill vacancies that may
arise due to non-joining or resignation of selected candidates, and
not to enlarge the zone of eligibility or dilute the prescribed
benchmarks. Consequently, the minimum standards stipulated
under the rules cannot be relaxed solely for the purpose of
preparing or extending a reserve list, as doing so would amount to
circumventing the statutory scheme governing recruitment and
would undermine the requirement of maintaining the prescribed
level of merit and eligibility. Consequently, the action of the
respondents in granting the additional relaxation is arbitrary and
contrary to the scheme of the recruitment rules and the
advertisement.
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (45 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
73. Accordingly, writ petitions deserve to be allowed and
the same are allowed. The action of the respondents in granting
additional relaxation of 5% in the maximum permissible
mistakes/errors in Phase-II of the examination across all the
categories, even where number of candidates equal to or more
than advertised vacancies are already available without granting
such additional relaxation of 5%, is hereby declared to be illegal
and contrary to Clause 22(6)(iv) of the advertisement dated
26.02.2024 as well as proviso (ii)(d) of Rule 22 of the Rules of
1970. However, the respondents are at liberty to grant such
additional relaxation of 5% in respect of particular categories,
where candidates equal to or more than vacancies advertised have
not qualified the phase-II examination without granting such
relaxation.
74. The provisional merit list dated 25.09.2025 and
subsequent final merit list issued vide press note dated
21.10.2025 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents
are directed to prepare a fresh merit list by applying the originally
prescribed limits of permissible mistakes i.e. 20% for unreserved
category candidates and 25% for SC/ST candidates as per proviso
(ii) (c) of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1970; and to apply additional
relaxation of 5% as per proviso (ii) (d) of Rule 22 of the Rules of
1970 only in respect of particular category, where candidates
equal to or more than the number of vacancy could not qualify
phase-II without availing such additional relaxation. Only after
carrying out the above referred exercise, the respondents shall
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10830] (46 of 46) [CW-16386/2025]
proceed further with the recruitment process in accordance with
law.
75. The entire exercise shall be completed by the
respondents within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
76. Original record of the case submitted by learned
counsel for the respondent-Board has been returned to him in
sealed cover.
77. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
78. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on
record of each connected writ petition.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
MANOJ NARWANI /***
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:16:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:57:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
