Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Tanmay Jain S/O Mahesh Chand Jain vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:2050]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19981/2025
1. Sristi Singhal D/o Satyendra Singhal, Aged About 25
Years, Resident Of Gandhi Chowk, Main Market,
Mandawar, Dausa, Rajasthan- 321609.
2. Hina Jain D/o Ramesh Chandra Jain, Aged About 34
Years, Resident Of Village- Jashma, Tehsil- Bhupal Sagar,
District- Chittorgarh, Rajasthan-312202.
3. Nitika Singh D/o Mahaveer Singh, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident Of 112 B, Janta Colony, Pali, Rajasthan-306401.
4. Alok Godara S/o Omveer Singh, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident Of 22, Shyam Vihar, Station Road, Chomu,
Jaipur, Rajasthan- 303702.
5. Ritika Pareek D/o Jugal Kishore Pareek, Aged About 44
Years, Resident Of 27, Laxmi Colony, Near Tonk Phatak,
Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302015.
6. Vikash Baswana S/o Ramniwas Baswana, Aged About 26
Years, Resident Of Village- Chantra Mangra, Nagaur,
Rajasthan-341021.
7. Astha Yadav D/o Rudal Yadav, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident Of Bhind Road, Pushkar Colony, Gola Ka Mandir,
Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh-474005.
8. Priyanka Foujdar D/o Nawab Singh, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident Of B-72 Jawahar Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan-
321001.
9. Praveen Jahanara D/o Sh. Shamimuddin, Aged About 41
Years, Resident Of House No. 152, Rishi Galve Nagar,
Galta Gate, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
10. Deepak Kumar Verma S/o Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 32
Years, Resident Of Sanjay Colony, Gordhanpura, Phulera,
Jaipur, Rajasthan-303338.
11. Harman Singh Bajwa S/o Surinder Mohan Singh Bajwa,
Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 5, House No.
211, Kasba Mohalla, Dasuya, Hoshiarpur, Punjab-144205.
12. Kritika Sharma D/o Kailash Sharma, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of 38-A C.g.m. Nagar, Kalyan Pura,
Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302020
13. Dilip Kumar Meena S/o Jagdish Prasad Meena, Aged
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (2 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
About 28 Years, Resident Of Village- Padla, Post- Jatwara,
Tehsil-Mandawar, Dausa, Rajasthan-321609.
14. Saurav Kataria S/o Ram Lal Saini, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 6, Dhani Bijyawali, Shrimadhopur,
Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan-332715.
15. Anju D/o Ram Krishan, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of
Village- Hajipur, Post-Billaheri, Tehsil- Kotkasim, District-
Alwar, Rajasthan-301702.
16. Vijay Kumar Meena S/o Hansraj Meena, Aged About 28
Years, Resident Of Village- Bhamoowas, Tehsil-Lalsot,
Dausa, Rajasthan-303503
17. Amit Meena S/o Bhanwar Lal Meena, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of 86, Ganesh Vihar Colony, Kacholiya
Road, Chomu, Jaipur, Rajasthan-303702
18. Roshan Meena D/o Ram Kishan Meena, Aged About 28
Years, Resident Of Ward No. 3, Molaipura, Tonk,
Rajasthan-304001
19. Vaibhav Pandey S/o Awadesh Pandey, Resident Of 12/14,
Clive Road, Civil Lines, Prayagraj, Uttarpradesh-211001.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, C-Scheme, Ashok
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
2. Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution,
Prosecution Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No.
7116-17, Food Building, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302005
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur
Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Madarpura, Rajasthan-305001
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20287/2025
Nimisha Bissa, W/o Tanay Jain, Aged About 29 Years, R/o B-83,
Flat No. 401, Ganesh Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-
302015
—-Petitioner
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (3 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Department Of
Prosecution, Secretariat, Jaipur-302005, Rajasthan
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Rpsc), Through Its
Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer, Rajasthan
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20422/2025
Yatendra Singh Sisodiya Son Of Mahendra Singh Sisodiya, Aged
About 30 Years, Resident Of C/o Mahendra Singh Sisodiya, 15,
Kishore Villa, Devi Nagar, Navratan, Bhuwana, Po Bhuwana, Dist-
Udaipur Rajasthan-313001
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, C-Scheme, Ashok
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
2. Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution,
Prosecution Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No.
7116-17, Food Building, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302005
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur
Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Ajmer, Rajasthan-305001
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20453/2025
Dharamsheel Sharma S/o Sh. Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Mandawari, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa
(Raj.)-303504
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, C-Scheme, Ashok
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005
2. Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution,
Prosecution Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No.
7116-17, Food Building, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302005
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (4 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Madarpura, Rajasthan-305001
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20572/2025
1. Poonam Sharma D/o Vishnu Prakash Sharma, Aged About
30 Years, Resident Of 2355, Khajane Walon Ka Rasta, 2Nd
Crossing, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302001
2. Chanda Nayak D/o Ram Narayan Nayak, Aged About 32
Years, Resident Of 54/10, Surya Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan-
302020.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, C-Scheme, Ashok
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
2. Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution,
Prosecution Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No.
7116-17, Food Building, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302005
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur
Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Madarpura, Rajasthan-305001
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20661/2025
1. Arvind Kumar S/o Harphool Bairwa, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident Of C-43, Ambedkar Nagar, Alwar, Rajasthan-
301001
2. Ankita Jain D/o Sanjiv Kumar Jain, Aged About 31 Years,
Resident Of C9, Nand Vihar, Rohta Road, Near Godwin
Public School, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh- 250002
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, C-Scheme, Ashok
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005
2. Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution,
Prosecution Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No.
7116-17, Food Building, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan 302005
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (5 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur
Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Madarpura, Rajasthan-305001
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20667/2025
Stuti Dave D/o Satish Dave, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Plot No.
63-A, Guru Jambeshwar Nagar B, Queens Road, Gandhi Path,
Vaishali Nagar ,jaipur , Rajasthan-302021
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Directorate Of Prosecution, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 105/2026
Sachidanand S/o Sanjay Kumar Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of H.no. 871, K.h. No. 14/20 Gali No. 33, Chandan
Vihar West Sant Nagar, Burari, North Delhi, Delhi – 110084.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, C-Scheme, Ashok
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
2. Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution,
Prosecution Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No.
7116-17, Food Building, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302005
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur
Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Madarpura, Rajasthan-305001
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 188/2026
Piyush Balot Son Of Shri Ram Kailash, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident Of A-506, Ramkrishna Apartment, Sector-14, Shipra
Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302020.
—-Petitioner
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (6 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Home Department (Prosecution Wing), Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan – 302005.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Rpsc), Through Its
Secretary, Ghooghara Ghati, Jaipur Road, Ajmer,
Rajasthan – 305001.
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 189/2026
1. Pooja Bagaria D/o Madan Lal Bagaria, Aged About 26
Years, R/o D-134, Suncity Projects, Sikar Road, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302013
2. Divya Singh D/o Pashupati Nath Singh, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Gadarpura Road, Opposite Budhi Mata,
Dholpur, Rajasthan-328001
3. Mahesh Kumar Meena S/o Rampal Meena, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Meeno Ka Mohalla Vpo- Rajnota,
Tehsil Paota, District- Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan-303110
4. Harshita Nagarwal D/o Shivratan Verma Nirmal, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Quarter No. 18, Police Line, Tonk,
Rajasthan-304001
5. Pooja Suwalka D/o Vishnu Suwalka, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Ricco Area Raila, Tehsil- Banera District- Shahpura,
Rajasthan-311024
6. Madina Banu D/o Liyakat Ali Khan, Aged About 49 Years,
R/o 96, Aashan Ke Pas, Phulia Khan District-Shahpura,
Rajasthan-311407
7. Neetu Kumari Goyal D/o Rajender Kumar Jain, Aged
About 42 Years, R/o A-702, Aashirwad Anandam
Complex, Near Agni Shaman Kendra, R.k. Puram Kota,
Rajasthan-324005
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, C-Scheme, Ashok
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
2. Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution,
Prosecution Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No.
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (7 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
7116-17, Food Building, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302005
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur
Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Madarpura, Rajasthan-305001
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 205/2026
Akshita Gupta D/o Ashok Gupta, Aged About 29 Years, Resident
Of 138, Tikkarmal Ka Rasta, Kishanpole Bazaar, Jaipur, Rajasthan
– 302001
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, C-Scheme, Ashok
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005
2. Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution,
Prosecution Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No.
7116-17, Food Building, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan – 302005
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur
Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Madarpura, Rajasthan-305001.
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 285/2026
1. Nishad Vyas S/o Shyam Sunder Vyas, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 33-A, Ganeshpuri, Kalyanpura, Sanganer,
District Jaipur – 302020, Rajasthan.
2. Mayank Mishra S/o Vinod Kumar Mishra, Aged About 27
Years, R/o 29/f, Railway Colony, Tugalakabad, Pul Pehlad,
Po- Pul Pehladpur, Delhi – 110044.
3. Bhawana S/o Ashok Kumar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Villa No. B-58, Awadhpuri, Dhawas, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan- 302021.
4. Bharti Pareek D/o Rajesh Vyas, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
33-A, Ganeshpuri, Kalyanpura, Sanganer, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan- 302020.
5. Bharat Vyas S/o Shyam Sunder Vyas, Aged About 27
Years, R/o 33-A, Ganeshpuri, Kalyanpura, Sanganer,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302020.
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (8 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
6. Ashish Meena S/o Dharmendra Kumar Meena, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Village Bharala, Post Mahawa, Tehsil
Neemkathana, District Sikar, Rajasthan- 332713.
7. Karamvir Kaur D/o Baldev Singh, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o House No. 467, Guru Nanak Colony, District Sangrur,
Punjab- 148001.
8. Nishant S/o Suresh Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
House No.666, Sector 15, District Sonipat, Haryana-
131001.
9. Prateek Sharma S/o Hari Shankar Sharma, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Near Post Office, Main Market Shahbad,
Village And Post Shahbad, District Baran, Rajasthan-
325217.
10. Sakshi Shrivastava D/o Subodh Shrivastava, Aged About
33 Years, R/o 364, Padam Villa Nearby Ig Residence,
Krishna Colony, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan- 321001.
11. Aakib Javed S/o Manjoor Ali, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Mohalla Gersariyan, Behind Masjid, Phar Bazar, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan- 334001.
12. Aditya Tiwari S/o Mahesh Kumar Tiwari, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Ramnath Sadan Gali, Pareek Chowk, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan- 334001.
13. Ankita Purohit D/o Daya Shankar Purohit, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Near Banisar Well, Bikaner, Rajasthan-
334001.
14. Ankita Soni D/o Shyam Kumar Soni, Aged About 35
Years, R/o B-5/4, Patel Nagar, Pawanpuri, District Bikaner,
Rajasthan- 334003.
15. Bhagyalaxmi Purohit S/o Bharat Kumar Purohit, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Pushkarna Stadium Ke Samne,
District Bikaner, Rajasthan- 334004.
16. Bhavesh Dadhich S/o Ramesh Dadhich, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Near Bk School, Inside Jassusar Gate, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan- 334001.
17. Deendayal Saini S/o Sanwar Mal Saini, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Near Krishna Bus Stand, Shri Dulichand Guest
House, Sardar Shahar, District Churu, Rajasthan- 331403.
18. Hemant Vyas S/o Bhanwar Lal Vyas, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Benisar Kunwa Near Jugal Bhawan Raghunath
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (9 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
Mandir Ke Pass, District Bikaner, Rajasthan- 334001.
19. Himanshu Bhojak S/o Anil Kumar Bhojak, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Gangashahar Road, Opp Transport Gali, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan- 334001.
20. Jogendra Singh Bhati S/o Narayan Singh Bhati, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Near Junglat Chowki, Desuri, District
Pali, Rajasthan.
21. Manoj Choudhary S/o Hawasingh Choudhary, Aged About
34 Years, R/o House No. 236, Behind Veshnodham
Mandir, Jaipur Road, Veshno Vihar Colony, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan- 334001.
22. Mohit Patel S/o Ram Lal Patel, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Village Manwa Khera, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur,
Rajasthan- 313002.
23. Nutan Saini D/o Kesari Singh Saini, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o Amarsar Well, Sadul Colony, District Bikaner,
Rajasthan- 334001.
24. Pankaj Vyas S/o Sampurna Nand Vyas, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Harsho Ka Chowk, District Bikaner, Rajasthan-
334001.
25. Pooja Kothari D/o Umesh Kumar Kothari, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Chandko Ki Gali, Dammani Chowk, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan- 334001.
26. Priti Pareek S/o Mahendra Pareek, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Devi Bhawan, Behind Bheirudan Banglow, Rani Bazar,
District Bikaner, Rajasthan- 334001.
27. Rajesh Vyas S/o Kunj Lal Vyas, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Inside Nathusar Gate, Near Pharsolai Talai, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan- 334001.
28. Raman Kumar S/o Vijay Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Ward No. 9, Village Saliwala, Sangaria, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan- 335063.
29. Rashi Ratawa S/o Lalit Ratawa, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Inside Gogagate, Dargar Street, Infront Of Ramdev
Temple, District Bikaner, Rajasthan- 334001.
30. Rishi Raj Acharya S/o Ramchandra Acharya, Aged About
31 Years, R/o Surano Ka Mohalla, District Bikaner,
Rajasthan- 334001.
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (10 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
31. Shreedhar Joshi S/o Lila Dhar Joshi, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Outside Nathusar Gate, Near Baba Ramdev Park,
District Bikaner, Rajasthan- 334001.
32. Shruti Vyas D/o Gopal Das Vyas, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Braham Puri Chowk, District Bikaner, Rajasthan-
334001.
33. Suman Kumari D/o Ganga Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Bhawanipura Pokaran, Ward No. 19, Pokaran, District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan- 345021.
34. Tripti Dadheech S/o Mahesh Kumar, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Inside Jassusar Gate, Behind Nsp College, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan- 334001.
35. Vikas Rakhecha S/o Narendra Kumar, Aged About 27
Years, R/o 2/38, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan- 341001.
36. Yogesh Dave S/o Kailash Kumar Dave, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Badi Brahmpuri, Bhatund, District Pali,
Rajasthan- 306707.
37. Varsha Shridhar D/o Devendra Shridhar, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Krishnpuram Colony, Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh
– 473551
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Government Secretariat, C-Scheme,
Ashok Nagar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302005.
2. The Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution,
Prosecution Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Room No. 7116-17, Food Building, Government
Secretariat, District Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302005.
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur
Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Madarpura, Rajasthan- 305001.
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 517/2026
1. Laxmi Pankaj D/o Ratan Lal Dhanetia, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Plot No. 56, Shankar Nagar, Behind Pinkcity
Hospital, Murlipura Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302039.
2. Ritika Verma D/o Ramkumar Verma, Aged About 26
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (11 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
Years, R/o Room No. 86 Kasturba Girls Hostel, University
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur-302004.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, C-Scheme, Ashok
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
2. Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution,
Prosecution Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No.
7116-17, Food Building, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302005
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur
Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Madarpura, Rajasthan-305001
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 660/2026
Aparna Vasistha D/o Sohan Sharma, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident Of 93, Shri Ram Nagar B, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, C-Scheme, Ashok
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
2. Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution,
Prosecution Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No.
7116-17, Food Building, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302005
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur
Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Madarpura, Ajmer, Rajasthan-
305001
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 769/2026
Saurabh Aswal S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad Aswal, Aged About 26
Years, R/o B-222 Phase 4, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Raj.)-303504
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief
Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, C-
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (12 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
2. Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution,
Prosecution Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No.
7116-17, Food Building, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302005
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur
Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Madarpura, Rajasthan-305001
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 775/2026
1. Vandana Nehra D/o Jalesingh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Village- Jatwas, Post-Hasampur, Tehsil- Neem Ka Thana,
Sikar, Rajasthan-332718
2. Nidhi Bansal D/o Rajinder Kumar, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o House No. 107, Sector 3, Hanumangarh Town,
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan-335513
3. Hardika Upadhyay D/o Anil Upadhyay, Aged About 25
Years, R/o F18, Azad Nagar, Near Maha Pragya Circle,
Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311001
4. Vivek Dhaka S/o Sultan Singh Dhaka, Aged About 33
Years, R/o House No. 117, Village Basani, Post Bairas,
Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar Rajasthan-332311
5. Yashoda Prajapat D/o Dhan Raj, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Ward No. 37, Bhojalali Road, Sujangarh, Churu,
Rajasthan-331507.
6. Pallavi D/o Harmesh Chand, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 31,
Golden City, Patran Road, Ward No. 4, Dirba, Sangrur,
Punjab-148035.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, C-Scheme, Ashok
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
2. Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution,
Prosecution Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No.
7116-17, Food Building, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302005
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur
Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Madarpura, Rajasthan-305001
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (13 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 776/2026
Niket Shah S/o Ramesh Kumar Shah, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
House No. 1293, Phase -1, Urban Estate, Dugri Road, Ludhiana,
Punjab-141013.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, C-Scheme, Ashok
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
2. Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution,
Prosecution Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No.
7116-17, Food Building, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302005
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur
Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Madarpura, Rajasthan-305001
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 777/2026
Taruna Sharma D/o Purushottam Sharma, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o 74, Kumawat Colony, Ajmer Road, Sodala, Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302006
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthna, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, C-Scheme, Ashok
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302005.
2. Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution,
Prosecution Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No.
7116-17, Food Building, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan- 302005
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur
Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Madarura, Rajasthan- 305001
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 778/2026
Pragati Mishra S/o Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o 128/268, H Block, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh-
208011
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (14 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, C-Scheme, Ashok
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302005.
2. Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution,
Prosecution Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No.
7116-17, Food Building, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan- 302005
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur
Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Madarura, Rajasthan- 305001
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 783/2026
Babita D/o Shubram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o A-23, Hasan
Khan Mewat Nagar, Alwar, Rajasthan-301001
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, C-Scheme, Ashok
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
2. Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution,
Prosecution Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No.
7116-17, Food Building, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302005
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur
Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Madarpura, Rajasthan-305001
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 784/2026
Sagar Agrawal S/o Manoj Kumar Gupta, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident Of Plot No. 96, Spm Nagar, Near St. Paul Sr. Sec.
School, Bharatpur, Rajasthan-321001.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, C-Scheme, Ashok
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
2. Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution,
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (15 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
Prosecution Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No.
7116-17, Food Building, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302005
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur
Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Madarpura, Rajasthan-305001
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 785/2026
Shipra Joshi D/o Hemant Kumar Joshi, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
40, Rajendra Nagar, Nimbahera, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan-312601
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, C-Scheme, Ashok
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
2. Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution,
Prosecution Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No.
7116-17, Food Building, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302005
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur
Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Madarpura, Rajasthan-305001
—-Respondents
WITH THE PETITIONS ENUMERATED IN SCHEDULE
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamed with
Mr. Mohit Sharma
Mr. Bhawani S. Saini with
Mr. Shivam Awasthi
Mr. Lokesh Saini
Mr. Tanay Jain with
Mr. Sachin Sharma
Mr. Prakhar Sharma
Mr. Brahma Nand Sandu
Mr. Parth Sarthi Sandu
Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Sandu
Mr. Anshuman Saxena
Mr. Divyansh Saini
Mr. Pradeep Mathur
Mr. Mohit Khandelwal with
Mr. Pranav Sharma
Mr. Keshav Dadhich
Mr. Harendar Neel
Mr. Amogh Gupta
Mr. Rohan Gupta
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (16 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
Mr. Naman Yadav
Mr. Amit Kumar
Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with
Mr. Aamir Khan
Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore
Mr. Ishan Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig with
Mr. Govind Gupta
Mr. Ashutosh Gupta (IAS), Chief
Controller Exam, RPSC present in
person
Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG with
Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma &
Ms. Epsa Nangalia
Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy. G.C.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
REPORTABLE
1 Arguments concluded on 16.01.2026
2 Judgment reserved on 16.01.2026
3 Full judgment or operative part pronounced Full Judgment
4 Pronounced on 27/01/2026
1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of the
controversy involved, albeit not limited to but is broadly and
predominantly defined by the challenge raised regarding the
arbitrariness inflicted upon the petitioners in checking the copies
of Mains examination for recruitment on the post of Assistant
Prosecution Officer in pursuance of advertisement dated
07.03.2024. Consequently, considering the fact that the writ
petitions warrant adjudication on common questions of law and
fact; with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all
the parties, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19981/2025 titled as
Srishti Singhal and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors, is
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (17 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
being taken up as the lead case. It is cautiously clarified that any
discrepancies in the present batch of writ petitions, pertain purely
to the factual narratives contained therein and not vis-à-vis the
questions of law to be determined by this Court; the instant
judgment shall be applicable on all the petitions connected
herein/henceforth (inclusive on the petitions enumerated in the
Schedule endorsed herein) on mutatis mutandis basis.
2. The lead petition is filed with the following prayers:
“(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction,
particularly a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing
and setting aside the impugned result dated 10.12.2025
declared by the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service
Commission, Ajmer for the Main Examination of Assistant
Prosecution Officer (Home Department- Prosecution)
pursuant to Advertisement No. 19/ परीक्षा/ A.P.O./
Prosecution Deptt./ EP-I/2023-24, to the extent it
declares only four candidates qualified;
(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction,
particularly a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing
and setting aside the evaluation process adopted by
the respondent- Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer for the Main Examination of Assistant Prosecution
Officer (Home Department- Prosecution) pursuant to
Advertisement No. 19/ परीक्षा/ A.P.O./ Prosecution
Deptt./ EP-I/2023-24, and the same be declared
faulty, arbitrary, illegal and accordingly same be
ordered to be set right.
(iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to
undertake a fresh, fair and transparent evaluation of
the answer scripts of the Main Examination of Assistant
Prosecution Officer, by bring the same on record and
adopting a rational moderation/normalization mechanism
and by rectifying errors, if any, in model answers or
evaluation standards;
(iv) Any other appropriate writ, order, or direction which
this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper be passed in
favour of the petitioner.
(v) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in
favour of the petitioner.”
SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE
PETITIONERS:
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (18 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
3. At the outset, it was cautiously clarified that the
present writ petitions have been jointly filed by the petitioners,
who are similarly situated persons and are aggrieved by the same
impugned action/order, giving rise to common cause of action and
involving identical and substantial questions of law and facts, and
that the filing of the present joint petitions is in consonance with
the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, which permit joinder of
parties and joint proceedings where he cause of action and reliefs
are common.
4. It was further contended that the present batch of writ
petitions has been filed assailing the result dated 10.12.2025
declared by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) in
respect of the Mains Examination conducted for recruitment to
181 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer (hereinafter referred to
as “APO”), pursuant to advertisement dated 07.03.2024, issued
under the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978,
as amended by notification dated 09.02.2024 and Rajasthan
Scheduled Areas Subordinate, Ministerial and Class – IV Services
(Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 2014. It was
contended that the impugned result is ex facie arbitrary, irrational
and unconstitutional.
5. It was further submitted that the petitioners are not
unsuccessful candidates in the strict sense, but are candidates
who had successfully qualified the Preliminary Examination and
were placed within the zone of consideration, being among fifteen
times the number of advertised posts. Accordingly, approximately
2,700 candidates (181 × 15) appeared in the Mains Examination.
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (19 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
It was further submitted that the Mains Examination comprised of
Paper-I (Law) carrying 300 marks and Paper-II (Language –
English and Hindi) carrying 100 marks, with a prescribed minimum
qualifying standard of 40 per cent in each paper.
6. Learned counsel submitted that to the utter shock and
dismay of the petitioners, the impugned result dated 10.12.2025
declared only four candidates as having qualified the Mains
Examination, thereby rendering 177 out of the 181 advertised
posts effectively vacant. It was urged that such an abnormally low
success rate is demonstrative of serious infirmities in the process
of paper setting and evaluation and is manifestly arbitrary,
unreasonable and irrational.
7. It was further contended that the arbitrariness of the
evaluation process becomes more apparent in light of the fact that
a majority of the petitioners have secured more than 40 per cent
marks in the Rajasthan Judicial Services Mains Examination, 2025,
which is acknowledged to be far more rigorous and of a higher
standard than the present Examination. This comparative
performance, according to learned counsel, clearly evidences
grave irregularities and arbitrariness in the evaluation
methodology adopted by the RPSC in the present recruitment.
8. Consecutively, learned counsel submitted that the
evaluation methodology adopted by the respondent-RPSC was
neither fair nor transparent and was carried out in a concealed
manner. The shocking and unprecedented outcome of the Mains
Examination, wherein only four candidates were declared
qualified, itself establishes substantive unreasonableness and
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (20 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
unfairness, thereby warranting judicial review of the examination
process and the resultant declaration.
9. On these grounds, it was submitted that the petitioners
are entitled to appropriate reliefs, including re-evaluation,
moderation, or award of grace marks. It was emphasized that the
advertisement itself categorically reserves liberty in favour of the
respondent-RPSC to adopt methods such as scaling, moderation
and normalization in order to achieve the object of the recruitment
process. Therefore, exercise of such powers at this stage would
neither be impermissible nor arbitrary, but would rather advance
fairness, transparency and uniformity among all candidates.
10. It was subsequently contended that adoption of re-
evaluation or moderation would be reasonable and justified,
particularly in view of the fact that recruitment to the post of
Assistant Prosecution Officer has been undertaken after a gap of
nearly ten years, as the last such recruitment was conducted in
the year 2015. At present, nearly 60 per cent vacancies are stated
to be existing in Courts below the level of Chief Judicial Magistrate
(CJM). Learned counsel submitted that criminal cases triable
before the CJM Courts involve offences punishable up to seven
years, and therefore, failure to fill up the advertised posts defeats
public interest, adversely impacts the criminal justice delivery
system and virtually nullifies a large-scale public recruitment
exercise.
11. In support of the submissions made insofar, learned
counsel placed reliance upon various judgments passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, amongst others, Pranav Verma & Ors.
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (21 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
v. Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
at Chandigarh, Writ Petition (Civil) No.565/2019; State of
Punjab & Ors. v. Manjeet Singh & Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 559;
Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi & Anr., (2010) 3 SCC
104; and Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, UPSC, (2019) 6 SCC
312. Reliance was also placed upon a recent judgment of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rustam Garg v. Punjab and
Haryana High Court, Chandigarh & Ors., passed in CWP
No.17608/2019, wherein it was held that in cases of
arbitrariness, evaluation of answer sheets by a fresh expert
examiner can be directed.
12. Learned counsel further relied upon the ratio
encapsulated in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High
Court & Ors., Civil Appeal No.2634/2013, to contend that the
“rules of the game” cannot be changed after issuance of the
advertisement. Additionally, reliance was placed upon the
judgment of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.17538/2016, Chandra Shekhar Sharma & Ors. v. State
of Rajasthan & Anr., to submit that, in order to give meaningful
effect to the recruitment process, methods such as moderation or
scaling can be adopted, even if not expressly provided in the Rules
or elsewhere, so long as such measures subserve the ends of
justice and fairness.
SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE
RESPONDENTS AND THE OFFICERS PRESENT IN COURT:
13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission had vehemently
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (22 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
opposed the maintainability of the present batch of writ petitions,
as at the outset, it was averred that the petitions are
misconceived and do not warrant interference in exercise of the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, as the scope of judicial
review in matters pertaining to selection and evaluation in
competitive examinations is extremely limited and cannot be
invoked in the absence of any specific pleadings or proof of mala
fides, bias, or extraneous considerations in the selection process.
14. In the present case, no allegation of mala fides are
levelled against the respondent Commission, nor against any
member of the expert body involved in the process of paper
setting or evaluation. Moreover, the present batch of petitions are
barred by the doctrines of acquiescence and estoppel; as the
candidates, having participated in the selection process with full
knowledge of the applicable rules, syllabus, examination scheme
and the prescribed minimum qualifying marks, cannot now be
permitted to turn around and challenge the result merely because
they have failed to secure the minimum qualifying standards. It
was emphasised that neither the advertisement nor the statutory
rules governing the recruitment were ever challenged by the
petitioners at any stage prior to or during the selection process.
15. Learned counsel further submitted that the concept of
moderation or scaling is generally resorted to in cases where there
are multiple papers evaluated by different evaluators or where
varying standards of evaluation may arise due to plurality of
examiners. However, in the present case, however, there was
uniformity and singleness with respect to the evaluator, and a
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (23 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
rational, uniform and fair method of evaluation was consciously
adopted. Therefore, the question of applying moderation or scaling
does not arise.
16. Subsequently, it was contended that no valid
comparison can be drawn between the present examination and
any other examination, including the Rajasthan Judicial Services
Examination, as the two examinations operate in entirely different
domains and are not comparable in the absence of any empirical
data or statistical analysis. Any such comparison, based merely on
general observations or passing remarks, is wholly misconceived
and legally untenable.
17. It was further submitted that the evaluation process
was conducted in a fair, transparent and objective manner, with
uniform standards applied to all candidates. There were no
irregularities in the conduct of the examination or in the
evaluation of answer scripts. Learned counsel submitted that, in
terms of the notification dated 09.02.2024, minimum qualifying
marks were consciously prescribed with the object of maintaining
merit and ensuring selection of candidates possessing adequate
and requisite knowledge for the post of APO, which involves
handling criminal cases where the State is a principal litigant.
Thence, the candidates who failed to secure the prescribed
minimum marks demonstrably did not meet even the minimum
standards required for the post, notwithstanding the fact that the
question papers were moderate in nature and strictly in
accordance with the prescribed syllabus.
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (24 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
18. In support of the submissions made insofar, reliance
was placed upon a catena of judgments, amongst others, Taniya
Malik v. Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi,
reported in (2018) 14 SCC 129, A.P. Public Service
Commission v. Baloji Badhavath & Ors., Civil Appeal
No.2244 of 2009, and Dr. Basaviah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh &
Ors., Civil Appeal No.6057 of 2010.
19. Learned counsel representing the respondent-RPSC
placed the entire relevant record before this Court, including
answer sheets of both selected and unsuccessful candidates, for
the Court’s perusal and consideration. It was explained by the
Officer present in Court, during a portion of proceeding held in
camera for the purpose of confidentiality, that a fair, transparent,
objective and rational approach was adopted at every stage of the
examination process, including framing of question papers,
constitution of panels of subject experts and evaluators, internal
control mechanisms, cross-verification processes and
determination of the marking pattern. It was further submitted
that the with a view to preserving the secrecy and confidentiality
of the working mechanisms of the respondent Commission, which
conducts a large number of examinations for various posts, the
modus of evaluation, internal processes and methodologies cannot
be placed in the public domain.
20. It was pointed out that, for the first time, the
examination deviated from a multiple-choice objective pattern to a
subjective mode of evaluation, for the reason that rotten
knowledge gets replaced by detailed, inter-linked knowledge and
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (25 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
with minds who can give a better shape to the case; and keeping
this in view, minimum qualifying marks were consciously
prescribed to ensure a better, merit-based selection process.
21. Learned counsel also referred to the submissions
advanced on behalf of the State, wherein it was categorically
contended that, as per the applicable rules, re-evaluation,
moderation or scaling is not permissible. It was further submitted
that the State as well as the respondent Commission are not
inclined to fill up the vacant posts by lowering the prescribed
standards or by granting relief to unsuccessful candidates who
have secured marks below the stipulated minimum. Lastly, it was
contended that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the
petitioners upon the judgments, as mentioned herenabove, is
incorrect, as the relied upon judgments carry distinguishable
factual nitty-gritty. On these premises, it was urged that the writ
petitions deserve to be dismissed.
DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS:
22. This Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to
the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and has meticulously examined the records produced by the
respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission, including the
answer sheets and evaluation material, through an in-camera
process. At the outset, before proceeding to record its opinion on
the merits of the controversy, this Court considers it appropriate
to delineate certain undisputed and incontrovertible facts:
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (26 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]22.1 The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), vide
advertisement dated 07.03.2024, invited applications for
recruitment to 181 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer (APO).
22.2 The recruitment process was governed by the Rajasthan
Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, as amended by
notification dated 09.02.2024 (Annexure-1).
22.3 As per the advertisement and the amended Rules, the
selection process consisted of two stages, namely:
(i) Preliminary Examination (objective type); and
(ii) Main Examination (written), comprising two papers:
(a) Paper-I: Law (300 marks), and
(b) Paper-II: Language (Hindi & English) (100 marks).
22.4 It was categorically specified in the advertisement, the Rules
as amended, and the syllabus published on the official website
that the Mains Examination would be conducted on a subjective
written pattern, and not on an objective or multiple-choice basis.
The minimum qualifying marks prescribed were 40% in each
paper, with a relaxation of 5% for candidates belonging to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
22.5 It is an admitted position that, pursuant to the amendment of
the year 2024, the pattern of the written examination was altered
from objective to subjective for the first time. The Mains
Examination consisted of 20 questions carrying 5 marks each, 10
questions carrying 10 marks each, and 5 questions carrying 20
marks each. The said pattern was explained before this Court by
the Chief Controller of Examination, who was present during the
proceedings.
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (27 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
23. Consequent upon the facts noted hereinabove, this
Court considers it appropriate to further delineate its reasoning as,
it is trite law that the power of judicial review in matters of
recruitment and selection is not that of an appellate authority.
Courts are concerned with the decision-making process, and not
with the decision itself. The settled principle ‘judicial review is
concerned with the manner in which the decision is made and not
the merits of the decision’ stands reiterated time and again by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. The maxim acta exteriora indicant
interiora secreta meaning- external acts indicate internal intent,
applies with full force, as the contemporaneous record placed
before this Court reflects a fair, structured and reasoned
evaluation mechanism, negating the allegation of arbitrariness.
24. Evaluation Process and In-Camera Examination of
Records: This Court has perused, in camera, the instructions
issued to the evaluators/examiners, the evaluated answer sheets
of both successful and unsuccessful candidates, and the
explanatory material placed on record by the respondent-RPSC.
Upon such examination, it clearly emerges that each question was
evaluated by the same set of examiners, thereby eliminating any
possibility of variation or deviation in evaluation standards. The
evaluators were issued detailed and structured instructions for
award of marks, including reference to statutory provisions, citing
of relevant sections, case laws, clarity of legal reasoning, and
content of answers. Moreover, the evaluation process was
supported by internal checks and cross-verification mechanisms.
On selective perusal of answer sheets of handful of randomly
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (28 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
selected unsuccessful petitioners as well as selected candidates,
this Court finds that the evaluation methodology adopted was
rational, uniform, fair and transparent, and no material indicative
of arbitrariness, irrationality or unfairness is discernible.
25. Notably, the writ petitions do not challenge the validity
of the Rules as amended by notification dated 09.02.2024, nor is
any allegation of mala fides levelled against the respondent-RPSC
or any member of the expert bodies involved in the examination
or evaluation process.
26. Doctrine of Acquiescence and Estoppel: It is
undisputed that the petitioners participated in the recruitment
process with full knowledge of the rules, syllabus, examination
scheme and the minimum qualifying marks prescribed vide
notification dated 09.02.2024 more specifically ‘Amendment to
Rule 22’. The advertisement and statutory rules were never
assailed prior to declaration of the result. Therefore, it is opined
that having taken a calculated chance in the selection process, the
petitioners cannot, upon being unsuccessful, seek to challenge the
outcome. Thence, the said action of the petitioners attracts the
doctrine of estoppel by conduct, as a candidate who has
acquiesced to the process cannot approbate and reprobate. The
petitioners participated in the recruitment process with full
knowledge of the rules, the amended examination pattern, and
the minimum qualifying marks prescribed. At no stage prior to the
conduct of the examination or declaration of results were these
conditions challenged. Having accepted the terms of the
advertisement and the Rules, the petitioners, upon being
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (29 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
unsuccessful, cannot turn around and seek re-evaluation,
moderation, scaling, or award of grace marks. In this regard, this
Court deems it apposite to place reliance upon the ratio of Tajvir
Singh Sodhi and Ors. vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir
and Ors.: 2023 INSC 309, relevant extract from which is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“13.1. It is therefore trite that candidates,
having taken part in the selection process
without any demur or protest, cannot
challenge the same after having been declared
unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate
and reprobate at the same time. In other
words, simply because the result of the
selection process is not palatable to a
candidate, he cannot allege that the process of
interview was unfair or that there was some
lacuna in the process. Therefore, we find that the
writ Petitioners in these cases, could not have
questioned before a Court of law, the rationale
behind recasting the selection criteria, as they
willingly took part in the selection process even after
the criteria had been so recast. Their candidature
was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria.
A challenge was thrown against the same only after
they had been declared unsuccessful in the selection
process, at which stage, the challenge ought not to
have been entertained in light of the principle of
waiver and acquiescence.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Further, reliance can be placed upon the dictum of Taniya
Malik (Supra), the relevant extract of which is reiterated
hereinbelow:
“21. Even otherwise the petitioners have
undertaken the exam with the stipulation of
minimum cut-off marks in written and oral
examination and then having failed, they
cannot turn round and are estopped to contend
to the contrary. This Court in K.H. Siraj has
observed that when the candidates participated in
the interview with the knowledge that for selection
they have to clear the prescribed minimum pass
marks, on being unsuccessful in interview,
could not turn around and challenge that the(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (30 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]prescription of minimum marks was
improper……..”
(Emphasis supplied)
27. Low Success Rate – No Presumption of Illegality:
The principal plank of the petitioners’ challenge rests upon the
allegedly “shockingly low” number of qualified candidates.
However, mere numerical outcome cannot ipso facto render an
examination arbitrary. In the ratio encapsulated in Baloji
Badhavath & Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
categorically held that low pass percentage by itself does not
justify interference unless the evaluation process is shown to be
vitiated by mala fides or patent arbitrariness. It can also be noted
that vacancies cannot be filled at the cost of merit, eligibility, or
statutory standards. The relevant extract from Baloji Badhavath
& Ors. (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:
“It was furthermore held:
“14. Time is now ripe for Courts to lay
down the limits to the lowering of
standards for the purpose of compensatory
preference. The intensity of
compensatory preference cannot be at
the expense of even-handedness and
merit and cannot proliferate to such an
extent as to prove fatal to the basic
proficiency and efficiency. The intensity
must vary depending on the nature of the
compensatory discrimination whether it is
primarily for individual benefit or whether
the quality of public service is directly
affected. Krishna Iyer, J., observed in State
of Kerela v. N.M. Thomas that “to relax
basic qualification is to compromise with
the minimum administrative efficiency and
is presumably barred by Art. 335″.
Lowering of standards for the purpose of compensatory
discrimination is limited to competing commitments to
efficient administration.
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (31 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
Public interest demands concern for quality and
prohibits waiver or abandonment of quality.
In Janki Prasad v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, the
Supreme Court observed that the setting of
absurdly low minimal scores made it a “travesty of
selection”.”
(Emphasis supplied)
28. Comparative Examination Argument – Rejected:
The attempt of the petitioners to draw parity with performance in
other examinations, including the Rajasthan Judicial Services
Examination, is legally untenable. The settled principle of
comparatio est odiosa, meaning that comparison is odious applies
to the case at hand, as two distinct examinations conducted for
different services, with different objectives and standards, cannot
be equated in absence of empirical data. It is opined that merit
across different examinations is irrelevant and impermissible for
testing validity of a selection process, for various reasons, as that
of difference in syllabi, mode of examination, selection pattern,
wants of the recruitment process, conducting authority,
evaluators’ perspective etc.
29. Public Interest and Filling of Vacancies: The
submission that public interest demands filling up of vacant posts
cannot override prescribed standards of merit; as this Court is of a
stern opinion that public interest lies not merely in filling
vacancies, but in ensuring competent and meritorious selection,
particularly for prosecutorial posts involving administration of
criminal justice. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the
dictum of Dr. Basaviah (supra), wherein it is categorically stated
that Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (32 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
expressed by the experts (as in the matter at hand the
evaluators); and that it would be normally wise and safe for the
Courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to the experts,
who are more familiar with the problems they face, than the
Courts generally do.
30. Proceeding further, in order to address the contentions
raised on behalf of the petitioners in more effective and
meaningful manner, this Court considers it appropriate to advert
to and apply the ratio laid down in Taniya Malik (supra), which
is of binding relevance to the present controversy. Accordingly, the
same is noted and examined hereunder:
30.1 Plea for application of moderation technique to the
instant examination: The prayer seeking re-evaluation,
moderation or scaling is equally untenable. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the judgment of Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service
Commission: (2007) 3 SCC 720, has categorically drawn the
guidelines whereby any Court can affirm the plea of moderation of
scores before it, and the matter at hand explicitly falls out of the
said ambit. The records placed before this Court demonstrate that
the evaluation was conducted uniformly by a single evaluator
following a rational and consistent methodology. It is well settled
that re-evaluation or moderation cannot be ordered as a matter of
course unless the rules expressly so permit or exceptional
circumstances are made out. In this regard reliance can be placed
upon the following extract from the ratio encapsulated in Taniya
Malik (supra):
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (33 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]“13. This Court in Sanjay Singh has laid down
moderation to be appropriate where there are
multiple examiners of the same subject. It has
also been observed that where a number of
candidates are limited and only on examiner will
evaluate, it is to be assumed that there will be
uniformity in valuation. That is only where
several examiners evaluate the same subject.
There is difference in average marks and range
of marks awarded. There is “hawk-dove” effect.
Some examiners are liberal and they award more
marks; some examiners are strict and they give fewer
marks, the same may be moderated. There may be
variance in degree of strictness and liberality. It is in
order to remove the subjectivity or variability, that the
provision of moderation is adopted. It is not the
situation in the instant case, hence, the decision
in Sanjay Singh rather than buttressing negates
the plea of moderation, urged on behalf of the
petitioners.”
(Emphasis supplied)
30.2 Relaxation of minimum per cent to be scored, as the
seats are lying vacant: It is noted that merely by the fact that
seats are lying vacant, it could not be a satisfactory or cogent
ground to relax the minimum marks for an examination that is
already complete. The same shall amount to changing the rules of
the games, and contrary to the settled principle of law, as laid
down in the dictum of Tej Prakash Pathak and ors. vs.
Rajasthan High Court and ors.: 2024 INSC 847. The relevant
extract to substantiate the view of this Court in this regard, from
the judgment of Taniya Malik (Supra) is reproduced
hereinbelow:
“19. In our considered opinion, it is desirable to have the
interview and it is necessary to prescribe minimum
passing marks for the same when the appointment in the
higher judiciary to the post of District Judge is involved.
The interview is the best method of judging the
performance, overall personality and the actual working
knowledge and capacity to perform otherwise the
standard of judiciary is likely to be compromised. A(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (34 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]written examination only tests academic knowledge,
which is some time, gained without possessing overall
qualities, practical experience of practice and law. In
written exam, even the person with no caliber who takes
decision by cramming may obtain better marks. When
the Judges of the High Court too are appointed by
adjudging the performance and intellect, an interview
would be indispensable for judicial post. As ultimately,
they also come to adorn the chair of a Judge and Judges
of subordinate and higher judiciary to deliver justice to
masses, the criteria of experience of practice for direct
recruitment of 7 years whether actually gained can be
adjudged only by interview, communicating skills and by
elucidation of certain aspects which would not be possible
by written exam alone. In Siraj (supra), it was
emphasized that interview is the main fulcrum for judging
the suitability of the candidate for appointment as District
Judge in the higher judiciary. In our opinion that is
absolutely necessary. When we consider past practice
earlier when the written examination was not prescribed,
the High Court used to select the candidates for higher
judiciary only by the method of interview. Now additional
safeguards of. written examination have been added. The
importance of interview for the post of the higher
judiciary has increased than ever before it is absolutely
necessary to weed out unworthy elements/crammers and
in our considered opinion it is not only appropriate but
also absolutely necessary to prescribe the minimum pass
marks so as to weed out unworthy element so as to
segregate grain from the chaff. There is a vast difference
between having the experience that is required for a
Judge that cannot solely be adjudged on the basis of
written performance, and for which overall personality,
intelligence test is absolutely necessary. Without that it
would not be appropriate to make appointments in
judiciary. Thus in our opinion the prescription of
minimum 45% marks for reserved category
candidates could not be said to be uncalled for.
Merely by the fact that some more posts were
advertised and they are lying vacant, it could not
have been a ground to relax the minimum marks
for interview after the interview has already been
held. It would not have been appropriate to do so
and the High Court has objected to relaxation of
minimum passing marks in viva voce examination
in its reply and as the power to relax is to be
exercised by the High Court and since it has
opposed such a prayer on reasonable ground and
the institutional objective behind such prescription,
we are not inclined to direct the High Court to relax
the minimum marks.”
(Emphasis supplied)
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (35 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
31. Lastly, this Court deems it necessary to observe that
the judgments relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners are clearly distinguishable on facts as well as in law,
when examined in the backdrop of the peculiar factual matrix and
the finer nuances of the present case. Illustratively, Pranav
Verma (supra), was rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,
in circumstances where the evaluation process suffered from lack
of uniformity, absence of structured marking instructions,
involvement of multiple evaluators, and demonstrable
arbitrariness–none of which are present in the case at hand. In
toto, the relied upon judgments were rendered in circumstances
where demonstrable arbitrariness, lack of uniformity in evaluation,
involvement of multiple evaluators without adequate guidelines, or
patent procedural irregularities were established on record. In
contradistinction, the present case discloses no such infirmities,
inasmuch as the recruitment process was conducted strictly in
accordance with the statutory rules, the evaluation was
undertaken by a uniform set of expert examiners following a
rational and structured methodology, and no mala fides or
illegality has been alleged or proved. Accordingly, the precedents
relied upon by the petitioners do not advance their case and are
inapplicable to the facts and issues arising for consideration
herein.
CONCLUSION :
32. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the present writ petitions do not warrant
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (36 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
any interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, for the reason in precise as that, the
recruitment process for the post of APO was conducted strictly in
accordance with the Rules of 1978, as amended by notification
dated 09.02.2024, and the terms of the advertisement dated
07.03.2024, including the prescribed examination scheme and
minimum qualifying marks; that the petitioners, having
participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the
rules and without protest, are barred by the doctrines of
acquiescence and estoppel from challenging the process after
having failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks; that upon
in-camera scrutinization of the original records, this Court finds
that the evaluation was carried out by uniform expert evaluators
following a rational, fair and transparent methodology, and no
arbitrariness, irregularity or mala fides is established; that the
mere fact that a limited number of candidates qualified cannot, by
itself, invalidate the examination; that the comparison sought to
be drawn with other examinations is misconceived, and the refusal
of the respondent-RPSC and the State to grant re-evaluation,
moderation, scaling or grace marks, or to dilute the prescribed
standards to fill vacant posts, is a conscious policy decision falling
within their exclusive domain and is neither arbitrary nor
unreasonable. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners are
distinguishable on facts, whereas the ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Taniya Malik (supra) and other
binding precedents squarely governs the present controversy.
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (37 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
33. Accordingly, the writ petitions are devoid of merit and
are hereby dismissed. Accordingly, the present batch of writ
petitions fails to hold any merit and is hereby dismissed in limine.
Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No orders
are passed as to costs.
34. The records made available to the Court for perusal,
are directed to be returned promptly; for which appropriate
application be filed by the respondents before the Registrar
(Judicial).
(SAMEER JAIN),J
JKP/DEEPAK/
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:2050] (38 of 38) [CW-19981/2025]
SCHEDULE
Sr. No. Title Reserved on
1. SBCWP No.1358/2026 21.01.2026
2. SBCWP No.20956/2025 22.01.2026
3. SBCWP No.1140/2026 22.01.2026
4. SBCWP No.1248/2026 22.01.2026
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 11:04:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 10:04:21 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
