Vishnu Datt Saini S/O Govind Narayan vs The State Of Rajasthan on 25 March, 2026

March 26, 2026

Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur

Vishnu Datt Saini S/O Govind Narayan vs The State Of Rajasthan on 25 March, 2026

[2026:RJ-JP:11979]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

              (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14328/2020

1.         Vishnu Datt Saini S/o Govind Narayan, Aged About 28
           Years, R/o 189 Maliyon Ki Dhani, Ward No. 03, Chomu
           Jaipur (303702) (Raj.).
2.         Ajay Kumar S/o Subhash Chandra, R/o Vill.-Jawaharpura
           Post-Nua, Jhunjhunu (333041) (Raj.).
3.         Sourabh Mahala S/o Jhabar Mal Mahala, R/o Mahala
           House,          Ward        No.       01      Navodi,          Shrimadhopur,sikar
           (332715) (Raj.).
4.         Pawan Saini S/o Gopal Lal Saini, R/o 70 Balekhan Mulgani
           Dhani, Loharwara,chomu,jaipur (303807) (Raj.).
5.         Ravi Choudhary S/o Hans Raj Choudhary, R/o 51 Khatiyo
           Ka Mohalla, Ramchandrapura, Sanganer, Jaipur (303905)
           (Raj.).
6.         Shimbhu Dayal Saini S/o Ram Kishor Saini, R/o Samod
           Road Nimadi Hathnoda Chomu Jaipur (303807) (Raj.).
7.         Rahul Swarnkar S/o Dayalal Swarnkar, R/o Jain Mohalla
           Bagidora, Banswara (327601) (Raj.).
8.         Devilal S/o Bhagirath Ram, R/o Siya Gav, Pur Jalor
           (343041) (Raj.).
9.         Prabhu Ram Suthar S/o Pira Ram, R/o Aleri, Raniwara,
           Jalor (343049) (Raj.).
10.        Punam Chand S/o Deva Ram, R/o Ward No.7 Phulasar,
           Bajju Khalasa, Bikaner (334305) (Raj.).
11.        Mohd.jahid Usta S/o Zakir Hussain Usta, R/o 15-Mohalla
           Ustan, Near Big House, Bikaner (334001 (Raj.).
12.        Vikash Saini S/o Sunder Lal, R/o Ward No.22 Maliyon Ka
           Mohalla, Hanuman Mandir Ke Pass Nohar, Hanumanharh
           (335523) (Raj.).
13.        Meenu Saini S/o Gulab Chaand Saini, R/o Ward No.35,
           Raghunath Ji Ki Bagechi, Ringus Road, Chomu, Jaipur
           (303702) (Raj.).
14.        Chhoutu Ram Farroda S/o Mehram Farroda, R/o Tegore
           School Ke Pass Manasar, Nagaur (341001) (Raj.).
15.        Bhagwan Sahai Jat S/o Gopal Lal Jat, R/o Vpo Devgudha,
           Th. Amber Jaipur (303701) (Raj.).


 (D.B. SAW/568/2022 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
                             (Uploaded onon25/03/2026
                           (Downloaded       25/03/2026atat05:44:23
                                                            09:06:33PM)
                                                                     PM)
 [2026:RJ-JP:11979]                             (2 of 54)                             [CW-14328/2020]


                                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                               Versus
1.         The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
           Animal Husbandry And Dairy Department, Govt. Of
           Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.         The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
           Its Secretary.
3.         Ankit Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh, R/o
           Village Ekla, Teh. Murdaha Varansi, Uttar Pradesh Pin No.
           221202.
                                                                               ----Respondents

Connected With
(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1429/2020
Bhanwar Lal Choudhary S/o Shri Parshuram Choudhary, Aged
About 27 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Morla, Tehsil
Malpura, District Tonk-304503 (Raj.)

—-Petitioner
Versus

SPONSORED

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Agriculture Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer (Raj.)

—-Respondents
(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3256/2020
Jitendra Singh Bamboriya Son Of Shri Ram Kunwar Bamboriya,
Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Dhani Bamboriya Ki Dhani,
Village And Post Mokhampura, Tehsil Mouzmbad, District Jaipur
(Raj.)

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary.

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Government Of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture, Government Of
Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur.

(D.B. SAW/568/2022 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon25/03/2026
(Downloaded 25/03/2026atat05:44:23
09:06:33PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:11979] (3 of 54) [CW-14328/2020]

4. Ashvini Kumar Vyas S/o Shri Kishan Lal Vyas, Aged About
22 Years, R/o Village And Post Bheemgarh, Tehsil Rashmi,
District Chittorgarh.

5. Pinky Goyal D/o Shri Om Prakash Goyal, R/o Itawa,
District Kota-325004.

—-Respondents
(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5209/2020
Dr. Kirti Sharma D/o Shri Dwarika Prasad, Aged About 31 Years,
Caste-Brahmin, R/o H.no. 402-03, Krishna Nagar, Bharatpur,
Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer (Adhoc), At Govt. Veterinary
Hospital Pipla (Sewar) District- Bharatpur, Rajasthan).

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, State Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel (Gr.-Ii),
Government Of Rajasthan, State Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. The Assistant Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan

5. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer,
Through Its Secretary.

—-Respondents
(5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14577/2020

1. Jitendra Singh Gangwal S/o Shri Madan Lal Gangwal,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village – Bibolaw, Post-Ganeti,
Tehsil Todaraisingh, Distt. Tonk – 304505 (Raj.).

2. Aditya Kaswan S/o Liladhar Kaswan, Ward No. 23,
Bhadra, Hanumangarh, 335501 (Raj.).

3. Ajay Kumar Jhajhariya S/o Om Prakash Jhajhariya, R/o
Adarsh Colony, Nawalgarh Road, Ward No 40 Sikar
332001 (Raj.).

4. Ajay Kumar S/o Mahandra Singh Thakan, R/o Angasar,
Abusar, Jhunjhunu 333001 (Raj.).

5. Akhil S/o Budharmal, Jandwa Ratangarh, Churu – 331022
(Raj.).

6. Akshaya Kumar S/o Om Prakash, R/o Jharewa, Sikar,
332316 (Raj.).

7. Alok Jat S/o Bharat Lal Jat, Kankoriya, R/o Farm House Ke
Pass Khandar Dist Sawaimadhopur 322025 (Raj.).

8. Amba Lal S/o Dhana Ram Kumawat, R/o Nali Ka Balaji,
Kuchaman City Nagaur 341508 (Raj.).

9. Amit Kumar S/o Om Prakash, R/o 68 Korani Johad Vali
Dhani Togra Khurd Jhunjhunu 333707 (Raj.).

10. Anamika Saini D/o Ram Chander, R/o Ward No 01 Dhani
Bandedi Udaipurwati Tehsil Jhunjhunu 333302 (Raj.).

11. Anil Kumar Khichar S/o Rajendra Singh, R/o 10/44 New
Housing Board Jhunjhunu 330001 (Raj.).

12. Anil Kumar S/o Jagdeesh Chandra, R/o Ward No -09,
06Iks Lakhasar Dist Hanumangarh 335803 (Raj.).

13. Anita Kumari D/o Banwari Lal, Road No 3, R/o Ward No
09, Diesel Pump Service, Jhunjhunu, 333001 (Raj.).

14. Ankush Kumar Suman S/o Laxmi Narayan Suman, R/o
Ward No 26, Jhalawar Road Khanpur 326038 (Raj.).

15. Ashish Kumar S/o Brij Lal, R/o Warispura, Tehsil
Jhunjhunu Dist Jhunjhunu 333001 (Raj.).

16. Ashok Kumar S/o Madan Singh, R/o Near Bus Stand,
Chachiwad Bada, Sikar – 332311 (Raj.).

17. Ashok Kumar Boori S/o Jagdeesh Prasad, R/o Mohan Ka
Bas Post Karansar Renwal Jaipur (Raj.).

18. Ashok Kumar Keer S/o Rameshwar Lal Keer, R/o 43,
Dhakd Mohalla Bilawati Kheda, Tehsil- Srward, Hingoniyan
Junia Ajmer (305406) (Raj.).

19. Ayush Chaudhary S/o Raj Bahadur, R/o Vill – Hansalsar,
Jhunjhunu, 333021 (Raj.).

20. Babita Kumari D/o Nathu Singh, R/o Tehsil – Nawalgarh
Khojas Jhunjhunu – 333304 (Raj.).

21. Babu Lal S/o Ramesh Chand, R/o Lalpur Unch Nadbai,
Bharatpur Raj 321602 (Raj.).

22. Babu Lal Yadav S/o Nanu Ram Yadav, R/o 56 Kariron Ki
Dhani Renwal Road Chomu Jaipur 307302 (Raj.).

23. Bhanu Prakash S/o Nihal Singh, R/o Vpo – Shyopura,
Tehsil – Chirawa, District – Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

24. Bhawani Singh S/o Keshar Singh, R/o Ward No 04, Jalpali
Srimadhopur Dist Sikar 332715 (Raj.).

25. Chaman Patidar S/o Suresh Chand Patidar, R/o Village –

Arniya, Post – Devad Dist. – Pratapgarh (312605) (Raj.).

26. Chandra Shekhar S/o Shiv Narayan Bishnoi, R/o Bher,
Nagaur 341001 (Raj.).

27. Deepak Gahlot S/o Brij Mohan Gahlot, R/o Shiv Mandir Ke
Samne, Ranisar Bash, Bikaner (334001) (Raj.).

28. Deepak Gill S/o Chandgi Ram, R/o Bugala, Jhunjhunu,
333305 (Raj.).

29. Dharm Chand Saini S/o Raghu Nath Saini, R/o Ward No
03, Dhani Bharanki, Thoi, Sikar 332719 (Raj.).

30. Dilip Kumar Yogi S/o Satyapal Yogi, R/o V/p. Rampura,
Bega Ki Nangal, Neem Ka Thana Sikar, 332718 (Raj.).

31. Dinesh Kumar Dhaker S/o Suresh Chand Dhaker, R/o
Thukrai, Chittorgarh 312023 (Raj.).

32. Dinesh Kumar S/o Ranjeet Singh, R/o V/p Ajeetpura Via-

Kaseru, Mukundgarh Dist Jhunjhunu 333705 (Raj.).

33. Dinesh Kumar Saini S/o Tarachand Saini, R/o Ward No. 26
Patavari Ki Dungari Rajgarh. Tehsil-Rajgarh, District –
Alwar (Rajasthan)

34. Dinesh Pratap Yadav S/o Suresh Chand Yadav,
Dwarikapura Kotputali Jaipur (303107) (Raj.).

35. Dinesh S/o Kojaram, R/o V/p-Tadawas Dist Nagaur
341025 (Raj.).

36. Gara Ram Saini S/o Suva Lal Saini, R/o V/p- Modawala,
Pragpura Tehsil- Kotputli, Jaipur 303107 (Raj.).

37. Ghanshyam S/o Nanak Ram Verma, R/o Jhiwana, Alwar,
301707 (Raj.).

38. Gurvinder S/o Rajpal, R/o Surajgarh, Jhunjhunu, 333029
(Raj.).

39. Harimohan Mali S/o Dhan Singh Mali, R/o Mahamadpur,
Sapotra, Karauli 322255 (Raj.).

40. Hemant Kumar Saini S/o Ram Niwas Saini, R/o Near Old
Water Works Ward No 22 Chandani Chowk Rajgarh

Sadulpur Churu 331023 (Raj.).

41. Hitesh Choudhary S/o Gheesa Ram Choudhary, R/o 128
Thakurwas, Pali 306023 (Raj.).

42. Indu Bala Choudhary D/o Hari Singh, R/o Behind Co
Operative S/o City Jat Colony Nawalgarh Road Sikar
Rajasthan.

43. Jagdish Das S/o Babu Das, R/o Vill. – Sankad, Ward No 7
Sado Ka Vas, Tehsil – Sanchore, Dist Jalore 343040 (Raj.).

44. Jai Prakash Khichar S/o Sanjiv Kumar Khichar, R/o
Narsara Takhalsar Fatehsilpur Sikar 331024 (Raj.).

45. Jaideep S/o Bhoop Singh, R/o Ward No. 02, Vill. Bojhala,
Bhadra, Hanumangarh, 335502

46. Jaskaran Singh S/o Sukhvinder Singh, R/o Vill 80
Baluwala Ward No 01, Shrikaranpur Dist Sriganganagar
(Raj.).

47. Jayesh Nagar S/o Champa Lal Nagar, R/o Vip-Kawai
Salpura Dist Baran 325219 (Raj.).

48. Jitendra Kumar S/o Mool Chand, R/o Vill-Dadiya, Via-

Katrathal Tehsil Sikar 332024 (Raj.).

49. Kamal Sokhal S/o Om Prakash Sokhal, R/o Ward No. 11,
House No. 520, Sukhwant Cinema Ke Piche, Purani Abadi,
Ganganagar, 335001 (Raj.).

50. Khushiram Yadav S/o Desraj Yadav, R/o 7/26 Malviya
Nagar Jaipur -302017 (Raj.).

51. Kirsan Kumar S/o Roopram, R/o Ward No 09 Bhadra
Hanumangarh 335501 (Raj.).

52. Krishna Kumar Bagari S/o Raju Ram, R/o Ward No 8,
Parbatsar, Nagaur, (Raj.).

53. Lakshmi Kant S/o Chob Singh, R/o Near Police Station, Gt
Road, Maniyan Dholpur 328024 (Raj.).

54. Lalit Kumar S/o Tara Chand Yadav, R/o Bijorawas, Behror,
Alwar 301701 (Raj.).

55. Lalit Kumar Jangid S/o Manohar Lal Jangid, R/o Ward No.
10, Dhobi Ke Pass, Chirawa, Jhunjhunu, 333026 (Raj.).

56. Lalit Kumar Saini S/o Sitaram Saini, R/o V/p-Hukampura
Dist Tonk 304024 (Raj.).

57. Laxmi Narayan S/o Lalchand, R/o 18 Sanjay Colony
Agrasen Nagar Sriganganagar 335001 (Raj.).

58. Lokesh Chahar S/o Ramkaran, R/o Amarpura, Alsisar,
Jhunjhunu, 331025 (Raj.).

59. Mahesh Kumar S/o Maliram, R/o Ward No. 01,
Hukampura, Jhunjhunu, 333012 (Raj.).

60. Mahipal S/o Vishan Singh, R/o Vpo-Alamsariya,
Dhorimana, Barmer 344704 (Raj.).

61. Manoj Kumar Dhaka S/o Phool Singh Dhaka, Tehsil, R/o –

Laxmangarh Via- Jajod Bhuma Bar, Sikar, 332318 (Raj.).

62. Manoj Kumar Kalwaniya S/o Hardev Singh, R/o Bhojasar,
Chhota, Laxamangarh, Sikar, 332312 (Raj.).

63. Manoj Sharma S/o Ramkishan Sharma, R/o Ramkishan
Medical Store, Toda Bhim District – Karauli (321611)
(Raj.).

64. Manoj Yogi S/o Gajanand Yogi, R/o Bansur, Neemuchana,
Alwar 301024 (Raj.).

65. Manphool S/o Ramkaran Singh, R/o Ward No 12, Dundlod
Kachha Rastay Par Dhani Sankhu Sikar 332401 (Raj.).

66. Mohammad Zahoor S/o Mohammad Zaffar, R/o Subhash
Marg, Mohalla Vyapariyan, Bikaner (Raj.).

67. Mohan Singh S/o Badan Singh, R/o 232 Nagla Ghadi
Lakhan Penghore Kumher Bharatpur 321202 (Raj.).

68. Mohd. Saddam Syed S/o Shbbir Hussain Syed, R/o Ward
No. 33, New Kotwali Road, Sikar (332001) (Raj.).

69. Mukesh Kumar S/o Gulab Singh, R/o Mundital, Churu,
331023 (Raj.).

70. Mukul Jethiwal S/o Madan Lal Jethiwal, R/o Near Senior
Secondary School Sheeshyoo, Sikar 332405 (Raj.).

71. Narsi Ram Gora S/o Harkaran Ram Gora, R/o Sardar
Singh Dhani Road Ramdev Colony, Kishangarh Ajmer
305801 (Raj.).

72. Nihal Singh Yadav S/o Ram Kunwar Yadav, R/o Vpo –

Sujat Nagar Dhani Khariyya Tehsil Kotputli, Dist. -Jaipur
303107 (Raj.).

73. Nitin Raj Saini S/o Rajpal Saini, R/o Modi Ward No 01,
Mehara Jatoowas, Jhunjhunu, 333036 (Raj.).

74. Omprakash Natwaria S/o Ridmal Ram, R/o Sandan, Churu
331506 (Raj.).

75. Pawan Kumar S/o Bhup Singh, R/o Ward No 20 Sanjay
Colony Rawatsar Dist Hanumangarh 335524 (Raj.).

76. Pawanesh Gahlot S/o Ram Prakash Gahlot, R/o 24, Pani
Ki Tanki Ke Pass, Binchhaval, Bikaner – 334006 (Raj.).

77. Pradeep Pal Singh S/o Ramswaroop, R/o Gt Road Police
Station Ke Pass Maniyan Dholpur 328024 (Raj.).

78. Prashant Saharan S/o Khayaliram Saharan, Vpo Beenjh
Bayala, 47 Lnp 1, Ganganagar 335041 (Raj.).

79. Praveen Pilaniya S/o Vidyadhar Pilaniya, R/o Kishan
Colony Near Kalpana Tailors, Nawalgarh Road, Sikar
332001 (Raj.).

80. Priya Saini S/o Lalaram Saini, R/o A-3, Bandhu Nagar, Jai
Chamunda Colony, Murlipura, Jaipur – 302023 (Raj.).

81. Priyanka Kumawat D/okailash Chand Kumawat, R/o Ward
01, Baravalo Ki Dhani, Ringus Road, Chomu, Jaipur,
303802 (Raj.).

82. Pukhraj Mahala S/o Jodha Ram, R/o Kushalpura, Reengan
Nagaur (Raj.).

83. Rahul Kumar S/o Krishan Kumar, R/o Bharti Bhawan,
Narhar, Jhunjhunu, 333035 (Raj.).

84. Rahul Kumar Saini S/o Laxminarayan Saini, R/o Butoliya
Karshi Farm Ke Pass, Hanuman Ji Ka Rasta, Ward No 30,
Chomu Jaipur 303702 (Raj.).

85. Rajendra Singh S/o Rameshwar Lal Dhayal, R/o Ward No
07 Dhani Budh Singh Wali Kotari Dhayalan Sikar 332404
(Raj.).

86. Rajesh Kumar S/o Banwari Lal, R/o Ward No. 3, Bagriyo
Ki Dhani, Sangarwa, Sikar – 332405 (Raj.).

87. Rajesh Kumar S/o Mohan Lal, R/o 3/391, Kisan Colony,
Jhunjhunu, 333001 (Raj.).

88. Rajesh Kumar Saini S/o Richhpal Ram Saini, R/o Ward
No. 08, Bdi Dhani, Modern School Ke Pass, Thoi, Sikar,
332719 (Raj.).

89. Rajnesh Kumar S/o Mahesh Kumar, R/o Khichdo Ki Dahni,
Rahnawa, Sikar 332401 (Raj.).

90. Rakesh Gena S/o Inder Raj Gena, R/o Rajputo Ko
Mohalla, Tabeeji Rural, Ajmer (305206) (Raj.).

91. Rakesh Kumar S/o Rajendra Prasad, R/o Ward No. 9,
B.ed. College Dharma Wala Kuwa, Rajbhawan
Udaipurwati, Jhunjhunu, 333307 (Raj.).

92. Rakesh Kumar S/o Hardayal Singh, R/o Gram Post –

Nanau, Tehsil – Nohar, Hanumangarh – 335523 (Raj.).

93. Rakesh Kumar S/o Shishupal Singh, R/o Chanwra Road,
Bijarniya Ki Dhani, Gudagorji Ka, Jhunjhunu 333022
(Raj.).

94. Rakesh Kumar Kharbas S/o Sultan Singh, R/o Ward No.
14, Tarpura, Sikar, 332024 (Raj.).

95. Rakesh Kumar S/o Ramniwas, R/o Madhopura, Sikar
332401 (Raj.).

96. Ram Lal S/o Mohanram, R/o 195, Jangid Colony, Paani Ki
Tanki, Seva Nagaur, 341303 (Raj.).

97. Rameshwar Lega S/o Arjun Ram, R/o V/p Lega Ki Dhani
Toshina Didwana Dist Nagaur 341319 (Raj.).

98. Ranjit Rewar S/o Girdhari Ram, R/o V/p – Singhana,
Didwana, Nagaur (341303) (Raj.).

99. Ravi Kumar Yadav S/o Sube Singh, R/o K-37 Sanjay
Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Housing Board, Jaipur (Raj.).

100. Ravindra Kumar S/o Raghuvir Singh, R/o Panne Singh
Pura, Post- Bhudanpura, Tehsil – Surajgarh, Jhunjhunu,
202966 (Raj.).

101. Rohan Kumar Yadav S/o Naresh Kumar Yadav, R/o Opp.

Bsnl Office, Renwal Road, Ward No. 06, Chomu 303702
(Raj.).

102. Rohit Nagar S/o Purushotam Nagar, R/o 376, Rajiv
Gandhi Nagar, Kota (324005) (Raj.).

103. Roop Chand S/o Nagarmal, R/o Sulkhania Bara, Rajgarh,
Churu 331303 (Raj.).

104. Sangeeta W/o Dharmendra Ola, R/o Shanti Nagar Rajgarh
Road Pilani 333031 (Raj.).

105. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Rameshwar Lal, R/o Barwasi,
Jhunjhunu 333042 (Raj.).

106. Sardar Singh Jat S/o Gigaram, R/o Kalyanpura,
Shrimadhopur, Sikar (Raj.).

107. Shripal Siyak S/o Prem Sukh Siyak, R/o Khairwa, Degana,
Nagaur, 341503 (Raj.).

108. Sohan Lal Saini S/o Shyam Sundar Saini, R/o Ringas
Road Near Puliya Chandoliyo Ki Dhani Chomu Jaipur
33802 (Raj.).

109. Subhash Chand Yadav S/o Babu Lal Yadav, R/o Ward No
33, Krishna Residency, Thana Moad, Kasba Bansur Puliya
Ke Pas, Alwar, 301402 (Raj.).

110. Sukhveer Singh S/o Ramnivas, R/o Doodana Ka Vas
Jhunjhunu (333707) (Raj.).

111. Suman Kumari D/o Jagdish Prasad, R/o Nahar Singhani
Mukundgarh Jhunjhunu 333705 (Raj.).

112. Sumit Karwa S/o Ramniwas Karwa, R/o Village-

Chandpura Tehsil Kuchaman City, Post- Jiliya, Dist Nagaur
341508 (Raj.).

113. Sunil Kumar S/o Mahendra Singh, R/o Ward No. 13,
Khemchand Ki Dhani, Dhamora, Jhunjhunu, 333308
(Raj.).

114. Sunil Kumar Prajapat S/o Chunni Lal Prajapat, R/o
Samode, Chomu, Jaipur (303806) (Raj.).

115. Sunil Kumar S/o Suresh Kumar, R/o V/p- S/otwara, Tehsil

– Nawalgarh, Jhunjhunu 333707 (Raj.).

116. Sunil Kumar S/o Manoj Kumar, R/o Ward No 7 Mukund
Garh, Jhunjhunu 333705 (Raj.).

117. Suresh Kumar Bhadu S/o Swai Ram Bhadu, R/o Juliyasar
Tehsil – Laxamngarh, Sikar Dist Sikar 332318 (Raj.).

118. Suresh Singh S/o Jeevan Singh, R/o V/p Adhaiya Khurd
Tehsil Kumher Dist Bharatpur 321202 (Raj.).

119. Sushil Kapri S/o Shanti Ram, R/o Kapriwas, Nagaur –

341511 (Raj.).

120. Talib Husen Rajer S/o Hafad Khan, R/o Rajer Aakal
Barmer 344704 (Raj.).

121. Tejendra Rav S/o Hari Ram Rav, Madpura, Nagaur –

341025 (Raj.).

122. Umesh Kumar Choudhary S/o Ammi Lal, Plot No. 91,
Dronpuri Colony, 200 Feet Bypass, Heerapura,
Girdharipura, Jaipur, 302021(Raj.).

123. Vikas Kumar S/o Sumer Singh, R/o Plot No 306, Shyam
Sarowar, Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur, 302012 (Raj.).

124. Vikas Kumar S/o Chhotu Ram, R/o Tehsil Fatehsilpur
Tejsar Dist Sikar 332301 (Raj.).

125. Vikas Kumar Sain S/o Ramesh Chand Sain, Gomti Colony,
Bayana Moad, Hindaun, Karauli – 322230 (Raj.).

126. Vikash Kumar S/o Bhagirath Singh, House No. 162, Tehsil

– Ratangarh, Biramsar Churu (331022) (Raj.).

127. Vikram Punia S/o Bhagirath Singh, Vpo – Jajod, Tehsil –

Laxmangarh, Sikar (332318) (Raj.).

128. Vikram S/o Satya Narayan, R/o Chirawa Road Ward No 03
Surajgarh Jhunjhunu 333029 (Raj.).

129. Vikramjit Singh S/o Vijendra Singh, R/o Behind Iti College
Sardar Patel Nagar Pawanpuri Bikaner 334003 (Raj.).

130. Vimalesh Kumar S/o Hanumana Ram Choudhary, 114,
Sampurn Ganv, Kitnod, Barmer, 344022 (Raj.).

131. Vinit Kumar S/o Deendayal Khayaliya, R/o Katrathal,
Sikar 332024 (Raj.).

132. Vipin Chandra S/o Maniram Sohu, R/o Ward No 02 Jejusar
Jhunjhunu 333707 (Raj.).

133. Vishal Suman S/o Hiralal Suman, 13 Vishal Medical Store,
Chand Khedi Road, Khanpur, Jhalawar, 326038 (Raj.).

134. Yogesh Kumar S/o Ramlal Birodi, R/o Chhoti,
Laxamangrh, Sikar – 332316 (Raj.).

135. Yogesh Saini S/o Babu Lal Saini, R/o Raghunath Das Ki
Bagichi Ke Pass Raiyo Ki Dhani Ward No 30 Chomu Jaipur
(Raj.).

136. Nitika D/o Rajendra Prasad, R/o Ward No.01, Mankdo,
Jhunjhunu, 303504 (Raj.).

137. Vinod Kumar S/o Krishan Kumar, R/o Behind Pwd Colony,
Nohar, Hanumangarh 335523 (Raj.).

138. Nitesh Kumar S/o Mukhram, R/o Ghisa Ki Dhani, Doomra,
Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

139. Mahender Milind S/o Lakeshar Satyapal, R/o Lakeshar, 83
Patel Nagar, Mehila Park Ke Pass, Purani Abadi Ward
No.11, Shri Ganganagar 335001 (Raj.).

140. Dinesh Kumar Saini S/o Sita Ram Saini, R/o Ward No. 1,
Near Ganesh Mandir, Shrimadhopur, Distt. Sikar (Raj.).

141. Prashant Kumar S/o Gambhir Singh, R/o Tuhiya, Tehsil
And District Bharatpur (Raj.).

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry And Dairy Department,govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.

3. Ankit Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh, R/o
Village Ekla Murdha, Distt. Varanasi (U.p.).

—-Respondents
(6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 161/2021

1. Anil Kumar S/o Mahendra Singh Sura, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Ward No. 9, Basantpura, Ked Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

2. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Ram Gopal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Ward No. 02, Lohara Road, Surajgarh, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

3. Prakash Kumawat S/o Mohan Kumawat, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Raj Wala Bera, Jaswantpura, Tehsil Pisangan,
District Ajmer (Raj.)

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry And Dairy Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.

3. Ankit Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh, R/o
Village Ekla, Distt. Banaras (U.p.)

—-Respondents
(7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12003/2023

1. Ajit Sherawat S/o Shri Laxman Sherawat, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Sherawarto Ki Dhani, Village
Harota, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Vikash Choudhary S/o Shri Ramdev Singh Choudhary,
Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Mabkali, Post Jaitusar,
Village Rengus, Sikar (Raj.).

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry And Dairy Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.

3. Ankit Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh, R/o
Village Ekla Murdha, Distt. Varanasi (U.p.).

—-Respondents
(8) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19715/2023

1. Dr. Sandeep Bissu S/o Devkaran Singh, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Purohiton Ki Dhani, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

2. Dr. Sushil Kumar S/o Ramkumar, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Ward No. 4, Bajju Khalsa, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3. Dr. Vinod Kumar Palsaniya S/o Harinarayan, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Dhani Badawail, Shahpura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. Dr. Vikas Kumar S/o Manohar Lal, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Vpo Jaluwala, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

5. Dr. Bhagirath Mal S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Village Karanpura, Post Khoor, Tehsil Dantaramgarh,
District Sikar, Rajasthan.

6. Dr. Prakash S/o Chandra Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Near Railway Station, Alai, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

7. Dr. Sarvesh Kumar S/o Prahlad Ram, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Vpo Ghanau, Swamiyon Ka Mohalla, Tehsil
Rajgarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.

—-Respondents
(9) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19720/2023

1. Dr. Harsh Kumar Meena S/o Bhabuti Lal Meena, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o 9, Shubham Colony, Near S.h.p.
School, Pushkar Byepass Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

2. Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Meena S/o Satyanarayan Meena,
Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Unda, Post Ratawad,
Tehsil And District Baran, Rajasthan.

3. Dr. Batti Lal Meena S/o Badri Lal Meena, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Vpo Shreema Dabara Ki Dhani, Tehsil Lalsot,
District Dausa, Rajasthan.

4. Dr. Sunil Kalasua S/o Shanker Lal Kalasua, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village Sohanvadli, Post Sendola, Tehsil
Cheekhali, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

5. Dr. Lokesh Gadat S/o Ram Lal Gadat, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 6/164, Rhb Colony, Housing Board, Dungarpur,
Rajasthan.

6. Dr. Vipul Kumar Meena S/o Amrit Lal Meena (Parmar),
Aged About 27 Years, R/o 31, Jai Shree Nagar-Ii,
Teetaradi, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

7. Dr. Kishor Singh Deshval S/o Amar Singh Deshval, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Near Old Post Office, Ware House
Road, Katra, Nadbai, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

8. Dr. Kuldeep Dayma S/o Krishna Kumar Dayma, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Gayatri Kunj, Gayatri School, Mohalla
Khatikan, Jhajhar Road, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan.

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.

—-Respondents
(10) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20155/2023

1. Anil Kumar S/o Shri Ashok Kumar, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Village- Jeevan Niwas, Post Dhadhot Khurd, Tehsil-
Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

2. Dr. Ashish Meel S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Meel, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o 41, Sundarvan, Nawalgarh Road,
Sikar (Raj.)

3. Dr. Bharat Singh Mahak S/o Shri Nekiram Mahak, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Ward No.8, Hameerwas, Jhunjhunu
(Raj.)

4. Dr. Praveen Ratnu S/o Shri Narendra Singh, Aged About
24 Years, R/o Vardhman Nagar, Matharia, Jodhpur (Raj.).

5. Dr. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Ramjas, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Kumaharn Vali Dhani, Topriya, Tehsil Rawatsar,
District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

6. Dr. Yashank Sen S/o Shri Laxminarayan Sen, Aged About
27 Years, R/o 51, Shri Ram Nagar, Nandri Road, Banar
Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).

7. Dr. Arjun Gehlot S/o Shri Devraj Gehlot, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Behind M.s. College, Ranisar Bas, Bikaner
(Raj.).

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry And Dairy Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.

3. Ankit Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh, R/o
Village Ekla Murdha, Distt. Varanasi (U.p.)

—-Respondents
(11) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20191/2023
Kuldeep Singh Gurjar S/o Vikram Singh Gurjar, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village Dungarpura, Post Morda, Tehsil Todabhim,
District Karauli, Rajasthan

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan

2. The Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.

—-Respondents
(12) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20581/2023
Rakesh Saini S/o Ramawatar Saini, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Dhani Dewawali, Jairampura, Vpo Bassi, District Sikar,
Rajasthan.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.

—-Respondents
(13) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 103/2024
Vipin Singh Poonia S/o Shri Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 35
Years, R/o A/29, Vivek Vihar, Kisaan Colony, Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry And Dairy Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.

3. Ankit Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh, R/o
Village Ekla Murdha, Distt. Varanasi (U.p).

—-Respondents
(14) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 250/2024
Dr. Lokendra Singh Nitharwal S/o Phool Chand Nitharwal, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Vpo Ranipura, Kasarda, Tehsil Khandela,
District Sikar, Rajasthan.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.

—-Respondents

(15) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 835/2024
Prateek Sahani S/o Shri Deokaran Singh, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Vpo Sotwara, Via Doomara, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry And Dairy Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary,

3. Ankit Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh, R/o
Village Ekla Murdha, Distt. Varanasi (U.p)

—-Respondents
(16) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2431/2024
Hemant Kumar S/o Nandram Bhaskar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Plot No. 75, Street No. 4, Surya Nagar, Hanumangarh Town,
District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry And Dairy Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.

3. Ankit Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh, R/o
Village Ekla Murdha, Distt. Varanasi (U.p.)

—-Respondents
(17) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3883/2024
Amar Singh S/o Shish Ram Jat, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Dhani
Harajeewala, Vpo Babai, Tehsil Khetri, District Neem Ka Thana,
Rajasthan.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.

—-Respondents
(18) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4191/2024

1. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sunda S/o Shri Harlal Singh Sunda,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o Plot No. 27, Anand Vihar
Colony, Vishwabharti Pg College Ke Pass, Jaipur Road,
District Sikar, Rajasthan -332001.

2. Radhey Shyam S/o Dev Karan, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
2/242, Gyan Marg, Near City Square Mall, B-Block,
Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan-305004.

3. Kuldeep Singh S/o Deda Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Village-Dhani Lawanda, Post- Thedi, Tehsil Ramgarh
Shekhawati, Sikar, Rajasthan-331024

4. Yashpal Choudhary S/o Sanjesh, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Ward No. 11, Ghassu, Sikar, Rajasthan-332315

5. Puneet Choudhary S/o Dilip Singh, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o V.p.o Wahidpura, Via Mandate, District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan- 333704

6. Mukesh Kumar Bajia S/o Kajor Mal Bajia, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Dhani- Ramsayaz, Village-Lakhani Via Rengus,
District-Sikar, Rajasthan-332409.

7. Hemant Panchal S/o Sajjan Lal Panchal, Aged About 26
Years, R/o 150, Prem Nagar, Jagatpura, Rajasthan.

8. Hemant Patidar S/o Nakendra Patidar, Aged About 26
Years, R/o G-608 Neelkanth Apartment, Baran Road,
Borkheda, Kota, Rajasthan-324001.

9. Aarav Kumar S/o Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o V.p.o Wahidpura, Via Mandawa, District-Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan- 333704

10. Deepak Jayaswall S/o Harish Jayaswall, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Scheme No. 10, A- 22, Vivek Vihar, District-
Alwar, Rajasthan- 301001.

11. Nisar Ahmad S/o Samay Deen Khan, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Chhilori, District-Alwar, Rajasthan-321633

12. Dr. Anil Kumar Dhaker S/o Raghunath Dhaka, Aged About
29 Years, R/o 201, Chetak Vihar, Agra Road, Jamdoli,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.

13. Richa Soni D/o Shri Arvind Kumar Soni, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Plot No. 497-498 Shivaji Park, Alwar,
Rajasthan- 301001.

14. Arvind Kumar S/o Shri Chhote Lal Singh, Aged About 47
Years, R/o Village And Post Bandanwada, Tehsil Bhinai,
Kekri, Ajmer, Rajasthan-305621

15. Swarup Charan S/o Chhagan Dan, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Mahadev Colony, Ward No. 22, Balotra, District-
Barmer, Rajasthan-344022.

16. Dr. Naveesh Kumar Nehra S/o Shri Jai Singh Nehra, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Ward No.25, Bhadra, District-
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan-335501.

17. Krishan Kumar Singh S/o Ghanshyam Singh, Aged About
34 Years, R/o 228 Gas Godam Road, Pushp Vatika Colony,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan

18. Manoj Kumar S/o Bachchu Singh, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o Sinsini, Bharatpur, Rajasthan

19. Shalendra Kumar Yadav S/o Moolchand Yadav, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o Vpo Banar, Tehsil Kotputli, District
Kotputli- Behror, Rajasthan

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry And Dairy Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.

3. Ankit Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh, R/o
Village Ekla Murdha, Distt. Varanasi (U.p.)

—-Respondents
(19) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4634/2024
Vivekanand Bairva S/o Ramlal Bairva, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Bairwa Basti, Gram Post Sewa, Gangapur City District-Sawai
Madhopur, Rajasthan.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary Ajmer, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.

—-Respondents

(20) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4989/2024

1. Monika Singh, D/o Birbal Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Ward No. 42, Janta Colony, Nawalgarh Road, Distt. Sikar,
Rajasthan.

2. Dr. Ashok Kumar Koori S/o Sh. Mangoo Ram Koori, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o V.p.o Rajpura Nosal, Teh. Danta
Ramgarh , Distt Sikar, Rajasthan.

3. Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh. Nand Lal, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Ward No. 1, V.p.o Bharonda Kalan, Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan

4. Anil Kumar Soni S/o Manohar Lal Soni, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Vpo Narhar, Tehsil Chirawa, Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan

5. Satyaveer Singh S/o Kedar Singh, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Village And Post- Hatizer, Tehsil Weir, District
Bharatpur, Rajasthan- 321028.

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry And Dairy Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.

3. Ankit Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh, R/o
Village Ekla Murdha, Distt. Varanasi (U.p.).

—-Respondents
(21) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7771/2024

1. Gajanand Kumawat S/o Mool Chand Kumawat, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o Vpo Bhojpura Kalan, Tehsil Jobner,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan – 303328.

2. Manish Jajara S/o Chenaram Jajara, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Plot No. 47, Redu Nagar, Govindpura Link Road,
District Jaipur- 302012.

3. Prahlad Singh Dhaka S/o Heera Lal Dhaka, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village Ramsinghpura, Post Kalak, Tehsil
Phulera, District Jaipur- 303328.

4. Rajendra Jangid S/o Madan Lal Jangid, Aged About 29
Years, R/o D-244, Kardhani Scheme, 9 Dukan, Kalwar
Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur – 302012.

5. Ramniwas S/o Sukharam, Aged About 29 Years, R/o R/o
Plot No. 47, Redu Nagar, Govindpura Link Road, District
Jaipur- 302012.

6. Sohan Lal Boori S/o Mohan Lal Boori, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Village Neem Wali Dhani, Mohan Ka Bas, Post
Karansar, Tehsil Kishangarh Renwal, District Jaipur-
303328.

7. Madhu Kumari D/o Madan Lal Khati, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o D-244, Kardhani Scheme, 9 Dukan, Kalwar Road,
Jhotwara, Jaipur – 341509.

8. Sita Ram Bijarnia S/o Govardhan Lal Bijarnia, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Village Moonwara, Post Sinodiya, Tehsil
Phulera, District Jaipur- 303328.

9. Tejpal Bajaya S/o Ram Narayan Bajaya, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village-Gumanpura, Post-Jorpura, Teh-Phulera,
District Jaipur -303328.

10. Madhu Kumari Jakhar D/o Pitha Ram Jakhar, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Vpo Mundiyagarh, Tehsil Kishangarh
Renwal, District Jaipur- 303603.

11. Shankar Lal Choudhary S/o Ghisa Ram Jat, Aged About
35 Years, R/o Vpo Pachar, Tehsil Jaipur, District Jaipur-
303706.

12. Santosh Ola D/o Cheta Ram Ola, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Vpo Pachar, Tehsil Jaipur, District Jaipur- 303706.

13. Mali Ram Ola S/o Cheta Ram Ola, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Plot No.4, Shankar Path, Omvatika First, Kalwar
Road, Govindpur, District Jaipur- 302012.

—-Petitioners

Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Agriculture,govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture,
Government Of Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Puroshotam Sharma S/o Jeeva Ram Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Mokhampura, Tehsil Mauzamabad,
District Jaipur- 303604.

—-Respondents
(22) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7772/2024

1. Dr. Abhishek Khoja S/o Ramjivan Khoja, Aged About 29
Years, R/o 115/217, Jalana Chhore, Mansarovar, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.

2. Lokesh Prajapat S/o Durga Lal Prajapat, Aged About 34
Years, R/o 115/217, Jalana Chhor, Near D-Mart
Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry And Dairy Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.

3. Ankit Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh, R/o
Village Ekla Murdha, Distt. Varanasi (U.p)

—-Respondents
(23) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8512/2024

1. Naveen Saini S/o Makkhanlal Saini, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o Bhagawati Bhawan, Near Naveen Petrol Pump, Patan,
Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan- 332718.

2. Vipin Giri S/o Malu Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village
Doshi Bas Sardarpura, Tehsil- Bhadra, Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan- 335501

—-Petitioners

Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry And Dairy Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.

3. Ankit Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh, R/o
Village Ekla Murdha, Distt. Varanasi (U.p).

—-Respondents
(24) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8722/2024

1. Mukesh Choudhary S/o Ram Narayan Choudhary, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Vpo Surpura, Boraj, Via Phulera,
Tehsil Mozmabad, District Jaipur- 303338.

2. Mangal Chand Dhaka S/o Hira Lal Dhaka, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village Ramsinghpura, Via Jobner, District
Jaipur- 303328.

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture,
Government Of Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Puroshotam Sharma S/o Jeeva Ram Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Mokhampura, Tehsil Mauzamabad,
District Jaipur- 303604.

5. Ankit Kumar S/o Chitar Lal Dhaker, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Vpo Chand Ji Ki Kheri, Tehsil Bijoliya, District
Bhilwara- 311602.

—-Respondents
(25) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8872/2024
Sushila Bhathesar D/o Sh. Ramdhan Bhathesar, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Village Lohrana, Tehsil Nawa, Chosla, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan.

—-Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture,
Government Of Rajasthan, Krashi Pant, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Puroshotam Sharma S/o Jeeva Ram Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Mokhampura, Tehsil Mauzamabad,
District Jaipur-303604.

—-Respondents
(26) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8876/2024

1. Anil Sevda S/o Ram Niwas Sevda, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Plot No. 179, Vardhman Nagar, Near Teja Circle,
Jaipur.

2. Poonam D/o Bhagirath Mal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Bakra Road, Bhani Nagar, Ward No.22, District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan – 333001.

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Agriculture,govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture,
Government Of Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Puroshotam Sharma S/o Jeeva Ram Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Mokhampura, Tehsil Mauzamabad,
District Jaipur- 303604.

5. Ankit Kumar S/o Chitar Lal Dhaker, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Vpo Chand Ji Ki Kheri, Tehsil Bijoliya, District
Bhilwara- 311602.

—-Respondents

(27) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8920/2024
Urmila Choudhary D/o Mohan Lal Choudhary, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village Ganeshpura, Post Kalakh, Via Jobner, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan – 303328

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture,
Government Of Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Puroshotam Sharma S/o Jeeva Ram Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Mokhampura, Teshil Mauzamabad,
District Jaipur-303604

5. Ankit Kumar S/o Chitar Lal Dhaker, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Vpo Chand Ji Ki Kheri, Tehsil Bijoliya, District
Bhilwara-311602.

—-Respondents
(28) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8962/2024

1. Ashok Choudhary S/o Shivji Ram Choudhary, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Village And Post Kothun, Tehsil Chaksu,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan – 303901.

2. Banshee Lal Kumawat S/o Bholoo Ram Kumawat, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o Village Jugmalpura, Post Jobner,
Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur, Rajasthan- 303328.

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Agriculture,govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture,
Government Of Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Puroshotam Sharma S/o Jeeva Ram Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Mokhampura, Tehsil Mauzamabad,
District Jaipur- 303604.

5. Ankit Kumar S/o Chitar Lal Dhaker, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Vpo Chand Ji Ki Kheri, Tehsil Bijoliya, District
Bhilwara- 311602.

—-Respondents
(29) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9302/2024

1. Mahendra Yadav S/o Anandilal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Vpo Dhodhsar, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan –
303712.

2. Kanheya Lal Yadav S/o Gopal Lal Yadav, Aged About 30
Years, Village Vijaygovindpura, Post Bhojpura Kalan,
Tehsil Jobner, District Jaipur, Rajasthan- 303328.

3. Om Prakash Rolaniya S/o Arjun Lal Rolaniya, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Rolaniya Ki Dhani, Choota Gudha, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan – 303602.

4. Rajneesh Yadav S/o Mohan Lal Yadav, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Khijuriya Village, Post Bhainsawa, Tehsil
Jobner, District Jaipur, Rajasthan – 303603.

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture,
Government Of Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Puroshotam Sharma S/o Jeeva Ram Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Mokhampura, Tehsil Mauzamabad,
District Jaipur- 303604.

5. Ankit Kumar S/o Chitar Lal Dhaker, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Vpo Chand Ji Ki Kheri, Tehsil Bijoliya, District
Bhilwara- 311602.

—-Respondents

(30) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9313/2024
Yogendra Kumar Budania S/o Balveer Singh, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Plot No. 47, Redu Nagar, Govindpura Link Road,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan-302012.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture,
Government Of Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Puroshotam Sharma S/o Jeeva Ram Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Mokhampura, Tehsil Mauzamabad,
District Jaipur- 303604.

5. Ankit Kumar S/o Chitar Lal Dhaker, Aged About 27
Years, , R/o Vpo Chand Ji Ki Kheri, Tehsil Bijoliya, District
Bhilwara- 311602.

—-Respondents
(31) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9333/2024
Vishnu Gurjar S/o Man Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village
Dayapur, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan –
321406.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture,
Government Of Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Puroshotam Sharma S/o Jeeva Ram Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Mokhampura, Tehsil Mauzamabad,
District Jaipur- 303604.

5. Ankit Kumar S/o Chitar Lal Dhaker, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Vpo Chand Ji Ki Kheri, Tehsil Bijoliya, District
Bhilwara- 311602.

—-Respondents
(32) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9895/2024
Sonu Berwal D/o Narasi Ram Berwal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
285, Janpat, Nirman Nagar, Lane No. 3, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan- 302019.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture,
Government Of Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Puroshotam Sharma S/o Jeeva Ram Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Mokhampura, Tehsil Mauzamabad,
District Jaipur- 303604.

5. Ankit Kumar S/o Chitar Lal Dhaker, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Vpo Chand Ji Ki Kheri, Tehsil Bijoliya, District-
Bhilwara- 311602.

—-Respondents
(33) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10340/2024
Babu Lal S/o Nanda Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Plot No. 1,
Sarasvati Vihar, Kandira Marg, Jhotwara, Near By Sahid Major
Alok Mathur Park, District Jaipur, Rajasthan -302012.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture,
Government Of Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Puroshotam Sharma S/o Jeeva Ram Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Mokhampura, Tehsil Mauzamabad,
District Jaipur-303604.

5. Ankit Kumar S/o Chitar Lal Dhaker, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Vpo Chand Ji Ki Kheri, Tehsil Bijoliya, District
Bhilwara-311602.

—-Respondents
(34) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10341/2024
Karan Singh Choudhary S/o Mahesh Choudhary, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Plot No. 135, Ganesh Nagar-5, Near Tagore Iti, Vki
Road, No.5 Macheda, Murlipura, Rajasthan-302012.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture,
Government Of Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Puroshotam Sharma S/o Jeeva Ram Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Mokhampura, Tehsil Mauzamabad,
District Jaipur-303604.

5. Ankit Kumar S/o Chitar Lal Dhaker, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Vpo Chand Ji Ki Kheri, Tehsil Bijoliya, District
Bhilwara-311602.

—-Respondents
(35) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10457/2024

1. Manphool Phoolphagar S/o Dhannaram Phoolphagar, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o Village Khanwar, Tehsil Jayal, Dist.
Nagaur, Rajasthan.

2. Rajesh Kumar S/o Omprakash, Aged About 33 Years, Vpo
Kaseru, Tehsil Nawalgarh, Village, Ajitpura, District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry And Dairy Department, Govt, Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.

3. Ankit Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh, R/o
Village Ekla Murdha, Distt. Varanasi(U.p.)

—-Respondents
(36) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10624/2024

1. Mohani Sunda D/o Kanaram Sunda, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o 191, Heeranagar-A, Heerapura, 200 Ft Bypass, Ajmer
Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302021.

2. Mukesh Kumar Jat S/o Prakash Chand Jat, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Village Aamload, Post Dhawali, Tehsil
Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan – 303806.

3. Saroj Jat D/o Shimbu Dayal Jat, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Vpo Shivsinghpura, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur-
303806.

4. Anita Yadav D/o Badrinarayan Yadav, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village Nopura, Post Hastera, Tehsil Chomu,
District Jaipur- 303712.

5. Pawan Kumar S/o Krishan Kumar, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Ward No. 6, Vpo Barwali, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh- 335504.

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture,
Government Of Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Puroshotam Sharma S/o Jeeva Ram Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Mokhampura, Tehsil Mauzamabad,
District Jaipur- 303604.

5. Ankit Kumar S/o Chitar Lal Dhaker, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Vpo Chand Ji Ki Kheri, Tehsil Bijoliya, District
Bhilwara- 311602.

—-Respondents
(37) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11931/2024
Shankar Lal Bijarnia S/o Ram Narayan, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Village And Post Murlipura, Vaya Jobner, Tehsil Kishangarh
Renwal, District Jaipur, Rajasthan- 303328.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture,
Government Of Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Puroshotam Sharma S/o Jeeva Ram Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Mokhampura, Tehsil Mauzamabad,
District- Jaipur- 303604.

5. Ankit Kumar S/o Chitar Lal Dhaker, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Vpo Chand Ji Ki Kheri, Tehsil Bijoliya, District-
Bhilwara- 311602.

—-Respondents
(38) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13797/2024
Ashok Yadav S/o Prakash Chand Yadav, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Jalim Singh Ka Bas, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan

– 303801.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Agriculture,govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture,
Government Of Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Puroshotam Sharma S/o Jeeva Ram Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Mokhampura, Tehsil Mauzamabad,
District Jaipur- 303604.

—-Respondents
(39) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1653/2025
Pushpendra Kumar S/o Jagan Singh Rohlania, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Jaswantpura, Kanchanpur, District Sikar, Rajasthan –
332715.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture,
Government Of Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Puroshotam Sharma S/o Jeeva Ram Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Mokhampura, Tehsil Mauzamabad,
District Jaipur- 303604.

—-Respondents
(40) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4963/2025

1. Amit Bhadu S/o Rai Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
823/f1, Ranisati Nagar, Janpath Lane No. 12, Nirman
Nagar, Jaipur- 302019.

2. Prabhat Saharan S/o Prem Kumar, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Home Number 198, Sharda Colony, Mahesh Nagar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture,
Government Of Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Puroshotam Sharma S/o Jeeva Ram Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Mokhampura, Tehsil Mauzamabad,
District Jaipur- 303604.

—-Respondents
(41) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16440/2025

1. Pooja Nunia D/o Ram Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Lamba, Police Station Bagar, Tehsil Chirawa, District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan- 333023.

2. Heeralal Bijarniya S/o Ishwar Lal, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Village Preampura, Post Dansroli, Dantaramgarh,
District Sikar, Rajasthan- 332742

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture,
Government Of Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Puroshotam Sharma S/o Jeeva Ram Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Mokhampura, Tehsil Mauzamabad,
District Jaipur- 303604.

—-Respondents
(42) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18735/2025

1. Rohit Kumar S/o Sadul Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Ward No. 12, Village And Post Kharakhera, Tehsil Tibbi,
District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

2. Sunil Kumar S/o Hari Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Village And Post Mohakam Wala, Tehsil Raisinghnagar,
District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan- 335051.

3. Shivdutt S/o Balwant Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Ward No. 15, Village Chamar Khera, Po Budhrawali,
Sadulshahar, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan- 335062.

4. Udaideep Balihara S/o Rameshwar Balihara, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Ward No.3, Village And Post Satipura,
District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan- 335512.

5. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Jagdeesh Chander, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Ward No.10, Chak 28 As B, Gp 2 Mld A,
Gharsana, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan- 335707.

6. Sushil Kumar S/o Pappu Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Chak 9 Lsm, Village And Post Khokharanwali, Tehsil
Anoopgarh, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan- 335701.

7. Kirtpal Singh S/o Paramjeet Singh, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o 14 Apd, Ramsinghpur Police Station, Sri Ganganagar,
Rajasthan- 335701.

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture,
Government Of Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Puroshotam Sharma S/o Jeeva Ram Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Mokhampura, Tehsil Mauzamabad,
District Jaipur- 303604.

—-Respondents
(43) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18865/2025
Omprakash Godara S/o Bhanwar Lal Godara, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Village Nakodesar, Post Kaloo, Tehsil Lunkarnsar,
District Bikaner, Rajasthan-334602.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture,
Government Of Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Puroshotam Sharma S/o Jeeva Ram Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Mokhampura, Tehsil Mauzamabad,
District Jaipur-303604.

—-Respondents
(44) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19075/2025
Lal Chand Yadav S/o Kalyan Sahay Yadav, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Village Damba Ka Bas, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan- 303712.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture,
Government Of Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Puroshotam Sharma S/o Jeeva Ram Sharma, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Mokhampura, Tehsil Mauzamabad,
District Jaipur- 303604.

—-Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Akshit Gupta Advocate with
Ms. Aditi Vats Advocate,
Mr. Shreyansh Dhariwal Advocate,
Ms. Pragya Seth Advocate,
Mr. Nakul Bansal Advocate and
Mr. Kamlesh Sharma Advocate
Mr. Harender Neel Advocate
Mr. Tanveer Ahamad Advocate
through VC with
Mr. Illyas Khan Advocate and
Mr. Umer Alam Advocate
Ms. Sushila Kalwania Advocate for
Mr. Pradeep Kalwania Advocate
Mr. Aamir Khan Advocate for
Mr. Ram Pratap Saini Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate
General assisted by Mr. Sheetanshu
Sharma Advocate,
Ms. Harshita Thakral Advocate,
Ms. Dhriti Laddha Advocate and

Mr. Tanay Goyal Advocate
Mr. Yuvraj Samant Advocate with
Ms. Neha Amola Advocate and
Mr. Tilak Vaid Advocate
Ms. Neha Swami Advocate for
Mr. Sandeep Saxena Advocate
Mr. Hardik Singh Advocate with
Ms. Mahi Choudhary Advocate for
Mr. B.S. Chhaba, Additional Advocate
General.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

REPORTABLE
Date of conclusion of arguments :: 12.03.2026
Date on which judgment was reserved :: 12.03.2026
Whether the full judgment or only
the operative part is pronounced :: Full Judgment
Date of pronouncement :: 25.03.2026

1. The present batch of writ petitions has been filed by the

petitioners, primarily laying a challenge to the screening result

dated 26.11.2020 declared by the respondent-Rajasthan Public

Service Commission ( for short ‘RPSC’) for the post of Veterinary

Officer. In some of the writ petitions, a challenge has been made

to the result for recruitment on the post of Assistant Agriculture

Officer, wherein also, the scheme of examination and governing

rules are pari materia.

2. The grievance of the petitioners, who belong to Other

Backward Classes (OBC) category, in the present batch of

petitions emanates from a common cause of action, alleging

infringement of their fundamental rights in the matter of public

employment. For the purpose of understanding the question under

consideration as also the dispute involved and for the sake of

convenience, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties,

although all the above writ petitions were heard analogously, the

facts stated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14328/2020 (Vishnu

Datt Saini & Others vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others) are

being taken into consideration for deciding this batch of writ

petitions by this common judgment.

3. The selection in question originates from an

advertisement dated 22.10.2019, issued for filling up 900 posts of

Veterinary Officer by direct recruitment, comprising 816 fresh

vacancies and 84 backlog vacancies, under the Rajasthan Animal

Husbandry Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the

Rules of 1963’). The candidates possessing Bachelor’s degree in

Veterinary Science or Animal Husbandry or its equivalent degree

issued by a recognised University, were eligible to participate in

the process of recruitment.

4. Process of selection has been prescribed in the

advertisement in the following manner:

p;u izfØ;k vH;fFkZ;ksa ds p;u gsrq p;u izfØ;k fuEukuqlkj jgsxh %&
laoh{kk ijh{kk esa izkIrkadksa dk 40 izfr’kr Hkkjkad vdknfed lk{kkRdkj dk dqy iw.kkZad
dh x.kuk dk Hkkjkad Hkkjkad
Marks Secured in Screening Test x 40
Total Marks of Screening Test
40 vad 20 vad 40 vad 100 vad

5. The aforesaid advertisement also provides for a

screening examination, which as per the documents placed on

record was held on the basis of Multiple Choice Questions carrying

maximum 300 marks. The screening test consisted of 150

objective-type questions carrying one mark each, with a provision

of one-third negative marking. Candidates, who qualified the

screening examination in the ratio of 1:3 of the vacancies

advertised, were to be allowed for Interview. As per the prescribed

scheme of selection, for the purpose of preparing the select list

after interview, candidates would be given marks out of maximum

100, out of which marks obtained in screening shall carry a

weightage of 40 marks on the basis of formula prescribed in the

advertisement, 20 weightage marks were assigned to academic

qualifications and 40 weightage marks were assigned to the

interview.

6. The petitioners, having applied pursuant to the said

advertisement, appeared in the screening examination conducted

on 02.08.2020. According to the petitioners, despite their

meritorious performance, they were excluded from the list of

candidates shortlisted for interview.

7. It is specifically pleaded that certain OBC candidates,

including the petitioners, who had secured comparatively higher

marks, such as Chhoutu Ram Farroda with a tentative score of 149

marks, were excluded from the zone of consideration, whereas

candidates belonging to the general category with significantly

lower marks, such as Ankit Kumar Singh with 78 marks, were

included, as would be reflected from the comparative OMR sheets.

The petitioners further asserted that upon seeking information,

the respondent-RPSC disclosed that the shortlisting had been

carried out on category-wise basis, by adopting a ratio of twice the

number of vacancies in each category, but declined to disclose the

cut-off marks and deferred publication of the final answer key till

completion of the entire selection process.

8. The aforesaid selection process has been assailed by

the petitioners contending that although the screening test carried

substantial weightage of 40% in the final merit, it has effectively

been treated as a mere qualifying examination without any

transparency in the shortlisting process. The exclusion of higher-

scoring candidates from the reserved categories, coupled with the

inclusion of lower-scoring candidates from the general category, is

alleged to be manifestly arbitrary. Further, the non-disclosure of

the criteria for awarding academic marks and not adding the same

in order to shortlist the candidates for interview as also the

absence of a fair and rational shortlisting mechanism, such as an

overall merit-based zone of consideration with due adjustment for

reservation are stated to have compounded the illegality.

9. The respondent-RPSC opposed the writ petition by way

of filing reply and submitted that the recruitment process has

been conducted strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and

the notified scheme of examination. It is the specific stand of the

RPSC that under the Rules of 1963, particularly Rule 19, the

selection is essentially based on interview and the RPSC is vested

with the discretion to scrutinise applications and call candidates

for interview in such number as deemed appropriate. In exercise

of such discretion and pursuant to a Full Commission decision

dated 29.08.2019, candidates were shortlisted category-wise in

the ratio of 1:3 against the advertised vacancies. Accordingly,

1878 candidates were declared successful in the screening test

and called for interview. It is further explained that in certain

categories, adequate candidates were not available in the

prescribed ratio. The respondents have further contended that the

category-wise shortlisting is in accordance with the rules and the

terms of the advertisement and, therefore, no comparison can be

drawn between candidates of different categories at this stage. It

is also asserted that the petitioners’ contention regarding the

existence of multiple stages of examination is misconceived, as

the Rules of 1963 contemplate only one stage of selection, i.e.,

interview with the screening test serving merely as a shortlisting

mechanism.

10. It would be relevant to mention that since one of the

ground raised in writ petitions was that the list of successful

candidates for the purpose of calling them for interview was

prepared without adding the weightage marks of academic to the

marks secured by the candidates in the screening test, only on

that ground earlier the writ petitions filed by the petitioners were

allowed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment/order

dated 08.03.2022 and the result declared by the Respondent-

RPSC dated 26.11.2020 was quashed and the RPSC was directed

to declare the result afresh after adding weightage marks of

academics with the marks of screening. However, other questions

raised in the writ petitions were left open by the Co-ordinate

Bench.

11. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment/order dated

08.03.2022, the RPSC filed intra-court appeals before Division

Bench of this Court, led by D.B. Civil Special Appeals (Writ) No.

568/2022 (The Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs Vishnu

Datt Saini & Others). The above batch of appeals was allowed by

the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19.05.2023

with following observations and directions:

“28. We have arrived at conclusion on factual premise that
the advertisement also does not lay down the order in which
the selection would be held in different stages and,
therefore, in such a case, the procedure as adopted by the
Public Service Commission cannot be said to be arbitrary,
unfair or discriminatory.

29. Once we have held that the procedure adopted by the
Public Service Commission was neither in contravention of
the applicable recruitment rules, nor in violation of the
procedure laid down in the advertisement, it being not a

(D.B. SAW/568/2022 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon25/03/2026
(Downloaded 25/03/2026atat05:44:23
09:06:33PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:11979] (41 of 54) [CW-14328/2020]

case of changing rules of game after the process of selection
had begun and further that the procedure adopted does not
suffer from any irrationality, arbitrariness or unfairness, the
scope of judicial review is extremely limited.

33. In view of above consideration of facts and legal
position as analysed by us, we are unable to uphold the
conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge that the
procedure adopted by the Public Service Commission in
calling the candidates for interview without adding the
weightage marks of academics was contrary to the terms of
the advertisement. Impugned orders are, therefore,
unsustainable and set aside. The conclusion arrived at
hereinabove will be applicable in the other appeals, except
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 914/2022, arising out of
orders passed in writ petitions involving challenge to
recruitment to the posts of Veterinary Officer, Assistant
Agricultural Research Officer (Agriculture Chemistry),
Assistant Agriculture Research Officer (Agriculture
Chemistry), Botany, Assistant Agricultural Officer and
Assistant Fisheries Development Officer because all those
cases are based on the common ground and pari materia
provision contained in respective recruitment rules, identical
terms, conditions and recitals in the advertisements though
for different category of posts.

34. In the result, all the appeals, except D.B. Civil Special
Appeal (Writ) No. 914/2022, are allowed. D.B. Civil Special
Appeal (Writ) No. 914/2022 is disposed off.

35. Consequently, writ petitions are restored and
remanded for adjudication on issues which were left open,
except one decided in these appeals.”

12. It would also be relevant to refer that against judgment

dated 19.05.2023 passed by the Division Bench, some of the

petitioners approached Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing

Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 38962/2023, in which

while issuing notices vide order dated 06.10.2023, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court passed interim order to the effect that the

interviews of the shortlisted candidates were not to be interdicted.

However, it was directed that appointments should not be made

without the leave of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The above

interim order dated 06.10.2023 was further modified vide order

dated 31.05.2024, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted

liberty to the RPSC to declare the result and issue letter(s) of

appointment to the selected candidates. However, the same was

made subject to outcome of the above SLP. Each one of the

selected candidate was directed to be notified of such fact, so that

he/she would not claim any equity only on issuance of

appointment order. However, finally the above SLP was dismissed

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.04.2025

declining to interfere with the judgment of Division Bench dated

19.05.2023.

13. Thus, it is clear that the interviews were conducted

under the interim orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

which were followed by issuance of appointment letters to the

selected candidates on account of modification of interim order by

the Hon’ble Apex Court. Ultimately, SLPs filed by the petitioners

were dismissed.

14. Since, vide judgment dated 19.05.2023, the Division

Bench, while allowing the appeals filed by the respondent-RPSC,

remanded the writ petitions to the Single Bench for adjudication of

the issues which were left open by the Co-ordinate Bench, while

earlier allowing the writ petitions, hence, the writ petitions were

pressed by the petitioners on other issues.

15. Mr. Akshit Gupta, Mr. Harender Neel and Mr. Tanveer

Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently

argued that the screening test in the present selection process

cannot be treated as a mere qualifying or shortlisting examination,

inasmuch as it carries 40% weightage in the final merit. It is

urged that once the marks obtained in the screening test form an

integral component of the final selection, the said examination

assumes the character of a substantive written examination and,

therefore, the respondents were under an obligation to disclose

the category-wise cut-off marks and final answer key at the stage

of declaration of the screening result itself. It is further contended

that the respondents have acted arbitrarily in shortlisting

candidates category-wise in the ratio of 1:3, which has resulted in

exclusion of more meritorious candidates belonging to reserved

categories while including less meritorious candidates from the

general category. Placing reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan High Court & Another

vs Rajat Yadav & Others (Civil Appeal no. 14112 of 2024 &

other connected appeals decided on 19.12.2025) relating to

migration of meritorious reserved category candidates to the open

category, it was argued that merit ought to prevail at every stage

of selection and that denial of opportunity to such candidates at

the stage of interview is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India.

16. Per contra, Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Advocate

General assisted by Mr. Yuvraj Samant, learned counsel for

respondent-RPSC submitted that the entire selection process is

governed by the Rules of 1963, particularly Rule 19, which confers

wide discretion upon the Commission to scrutinise applications

and to call such number of candidates for interview as it deems

desirable. It is contended that the selection under the rules is

essentially interview-based and the screening test has been

introduced only as a method of shortlisting candidates, though a

limited weightage has been assigned to it, yet it would be relevant

at the stage of interview and the criteria is for the purpose of

guidance for preparation of the final merit. It is further submitted

that the RPSC, by a conscious decision of the Full Commission,

adopted a uniform method of calling candidates in the ratio of 1:3

category-wise against the advertised posts, which is a well-

recognised and reasonable method of shortlisting. It was also

contended that comparison between candidates of different

categories at the stage of shortlisting is misconceived, as the

shortlisting has been undertaken category-wise in accordance with

the number of vacancies reserved for each category. It was also

argued that the judgment of Rajasthan High Court & Another

vs Rajat Yadav & Others (supra) is distinguishable in view of

the exception carved out in the judgment itself.

17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon

perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that

the core issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the

action of the respondent-RPSC in shortlisting candidates for

interview in the ratio of 1:3 category-wise, excluding allegedly

more meritorious candidates belonging to reserved categories

while including less meritorious candidates from the general

category i.e. without migration of the reserved category

candidates possessing more marks than the unreserved category

candidates at the stage of result of screening examination, suffers

from arbitrariness or illegality warranting interference under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not ?

18. At the outset, it is to be noted that the selection in

question is governed by Rule 19 of the Rules of 1963, for

recruitment on the post of Veterinary Officer and by Rule 20 of the

Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1978

(hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1978’) for the post of

Assistant Agriculture Officers, which are reproduced as under:

“Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Service Rules 1963:

(D.B. SAW/568/2022 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon25/03/2026
(Downloaded 25/03/2026atat05:44:23
09:06:33PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:11979] (45 of 54) [CW-14328/2020]

19. Scrutiny of Applications- The Commission shall scrutinize
the applications received by them and require as many
candidates qualified for appointment under these Rules as
seem to them desirable to appear before them for interview:

Provided that the decision of the Commission as to
the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate, shall be final.

Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules,
1978

20. Scrutiny of applications.- The Commission or the
Appointing Authority, as the case may be, shall scrutinize
the applications received by them and require as many
candidates qualified for appointment under these rules as
seem to them desirable to appear before them for interview:

Provided that the decision of the Commission or the
Appointing Authority, as the case may be, regarding the
eligibility or otherwise of a candidate shall be final.”

19. Since both the aforesaid Rules are para-materia,

therefore, to avoid any kind of repetition, this Court deems it

proper to consider and discuss Rule 19 of the Rules of 1963 for

the purpose of adjudication of the dispute involved in the present

cases.

20. Bare reading of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1963 makes it

clear that the rule empowers the Commission to scrutinise

applications and to require as many candidates as it deems

desirable to appear for interview. The language employed in the

rule confers a wide discretion upon the Commission in the matter

of shortlisting and the proviso further declares that the decision of

the Commission as to the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate

shall be final. Thus, the statutory scheme itself recognises the

authority of the Commission to adopt an appropriate method for

limiting the number of candidates to be called for interview. As per

Rule 19 of the Rules of 1963, the Commission is required to

scrutinise all applications received from candidates, meaning

thereby that it will examine whether the applicants fulfill the

prescribed eligibility conditions. After such scrutiny, the

(D.B. SAW/568/2022 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon25/03/2026
(Downloaded 25/03/2026atat05:44:23
09:06:33PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:11979] (46 of 54) [CW-14328/2020]

Commission has the authority to call for interview only such

number of candidates as it considers desirable for appointment

under the Rules. This makes it clear that mere fulfillment of

eligibility conditions does not confer an automatic right upon every

candidate to be called for interview and the Commission is

empowered to shortlist candidates on a reasonable basis. The

expression “as seem to them desirable” confers a wide degree of

discretion upon the Commission in the matter of shortlisting. It

may adopt suitable criteria such as screen test, qualifications,

experience, or limit the number of candidates to a reasonable

proportion of available vacancies or adopting any other just

criteria. Thus, even among eligible candidates, only those who

meet the criteria fixed by the Commission may be called for

interview.

21. The proviso to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1963 further

stipulates that the decision of the Commission regarding the

eligibility or otherwise of a candidate shall be final. This indicates

that the determination made by the Commission on such issues is

ordinarily binding and not open to challenge. However, in legal

terms, the finality attached to such a decision is not absolute and

the scope of judicial review remains available in limited

circumstances. Courts may interfere where the decision is shown

to be arbitrary, unreasonable, actuated by mala fides, or in

violation of the statutory rules. Thus, the Rule 19 of the Rules of

1963, when read as a whole, confers upon the Commission the

power to scrutinise applications, apply appropriate standards for

shortlisting and take a final decision on eligibility, while at the

(D.B. SAW/568/2022 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon25/03/2026
(Downloaded 25/03/2026atat05:44:23
09:06:33PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:11979] (47 of 54) [CW-14328/2020]

same time, requiring such power to be exercised in conformity

with principles of fairness and legality.

22. The contention of the petitioners that the screening

test, by virtue of carrying 40% weightage, ceases to be a

shortlisting examination, cannot be accepted in its absolute form.

The scheme of the advertisement, as well as the clarification

furnished by the respondents, makes it evident that the screening

test was introduced primarily as a mechanism to shortlist

candidates for interview, while at the same time, assigning a

certain weightage to ensure that performance therein is not

rendered otiose. Merely because a component of the selection

process carries weightage in the final merit, it does not lose its

character as a screening or shortlisting tool, particularly when the

governing rules continue to treat the selection as interview-

centric.

23. The adoption of the ratio of 1:3 for shortlisting

candidates for interview is also a well-established practice to

balance administrative feasibility with fairness in selection. In the

present case, the respondents have applied this ratio category-

wise against the advertised vacancies. Such a course of action is

in consonance with the reservation policy and ensures that

adequate representation from each category is available at the

stage of interview. The argument that more meritorious reserved

category candidates have been excluded while less meritorious

general category candidates have been included proceeds on a

misconception that inter se merit across categories must be the

sole criterion even at the stage of shortlisting. The principle that

meritorious reserved category candidates are entitled to be

considered in the open category operates primarily at the stage of

final selection and preparation of merit list and not necessarily at

the stage of preliminary shortlisting, which is structured with

reference to category-wise vacancies.

24. At the outset, it is to be noted that the written

examination, by its very nature, is only a preliminary or

intermediate stage intended for the purpose of screening and

shortlisting candidates for participation in the interview. The final

merit of a candidate is not crystallised at this stage, inasmuch as

the performance in the subsequent tier i.e. interview materially

contributes to the ultimate determination of merit.

25. It is a well-settled principle of service jurisprudence

that the rule of migration of a reserved category candidate to the

unreserved category is to be applied only at the stage of

preparation of the final select list, i.e., after completion of all

stages of the selection process. The benefit of migration is, thus,

not available at intermediate stages such as screening tests,

preliminary examinations or shortlisting exercises undertaken for

the purpose of narrowing down the field of candidates. Acceptance

of the petitioners’ contention would amount to fragmenting the

selection process and applying the rule of migration at multiple

stages, which is impermissible in law.

26. A candidate belonging to a reserved category cannot

claim placement in the unreserved category merely on the basis of

marks obtained in the written examination, for the reason that

such examination constitutes only one component of the overall

selection. The final inter se merit can be determined only after all

candidates have successfully undergone each stage of the

selection process and their cumulative performance is assessed.

Until such stage is reached, any claim for migration would be

premature and legally untenable.

27. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners

also overlooks the broader constitutional scheme relating to

affirmative action. The guarantee of equality enshrined in Articles

14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is not confined to formal

equality but extends to substantive equality, which permits

reasonable classification and affirmative measures to uplift

disadvantaged sections of society. It is not in dispute that the

candidates belonging to reserved categories are entitled to

compete in the open category on merit; however, such adjustment

is to be effected at the stage when the final merit list is prepared.

It is only at that stage that it can be determined whether a

candidate has secured a position on merit without availing any

concession and is thus eligible to be adjusted against the

unreserved category.

28. A careful consideration of the reliance placed by the

petitioners on the judgment in Rajasthan High Court & Another

vs Rajat Yadav & Others (supra) reveals that the same is

inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Paragraph 69 of the

said judgment itself clarifies that the principles relating to

migration of reserved category candidates at different stages of

examination would be applicable only in cases where the statutory

rules and the scheme of examination are similar or pari materia to

those which were under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the above case of Rajasthan High Court & Another vs

Rajat Yadav & Others (supra). Thus, the applicability of the

said principle is not universal, but is contingent upon the nature of

the governing rules and the structure of the selection process.

29. Details of the scheme of examination and the governing

rules in the case of Rajasthan High Court & Another vs Rajat

Yadav & Others (supra) has been given in Division Bench

Judgment of this Court, namely Rajat Yadav & Others vs.

Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur through Registrar General &

Another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 1732 in following

manner:

“22. The respondents issued an advertisement on 05.08.2022 for filing up
vacancies of Junior Judicial Assistant in the establishment of the Rajasthan
High Court, vacancies of Judicial Assistant in State Legal Services Authority,
District Legal Services Authority and Clerk Grade-II in State Judicial Academy
and in the District Judge establishment, it being a joint recruitment process.
The advertisement stated that the aforesaid recruitment shall be governed by
the provisions contained in Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Recruitment
Rules, 2002 (as amended), (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2002) and
Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 (as amended),
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1986’)- The petitioners have not called
in question the process of joint recruitment being governed by the aforesaid
two rules, however, one of the principal contention is that the process of
shortlisting after the written examination is in contravention of the provisions
contained in Notification dated 05.12.2002 issued by the Hon’ble Chief Justice
in pursuance of Rules 4, 5, 7 & 22 of the Rules of 2002. Part-1 A of the
aforesaid Notification deals with the methods of recruitment of ministerial
staff. Point (ii) of Part-I A deals with examination which provides as below:–

“(ii) EXAMINATION. – A competitive examination shall be held to test the
ability of the candidate in the following subjects & each subject will carry
the number of marks shown as under:–

(a) SECTION – A

(i) WRITTEN TEST- The written test shall consist of one paper of 300
marks comprising of:–

Part A                       Hindi                                         100 Marks

Part B                       English                                       100 Marks

Parte                        General Knowledge                             100 Marks

Each Part shall have 50 Multiple Choice Questions bearing two Marks for
each question.

(ii) Duration : Two Hours

(b) SECTION – B

(i) TYPE-WRITING TEST ON COMPUTER
There will be Speed Test on Computer.

Speed : Minimum speed should be 8000 depressions per hour on
computer. Data will have to be fed in English Language or in dual
language, i.e., English and Hindi.

The test will be of 100 marks which will consist of speed test and
efficiency test carrying 50 marks each (total 100 marks).

(ii) Duration : Ten Minutes
Note:

(i) The syllabus and scope of each subject of the written examination
will be as prescribed by the High Court from time to time and will be
intimated to the candidates within stipulated time through web-site
or in the manner as the High Court deem fit.

(ii) Those candidates who secure minimum 45% marks and 40%
marks in case of Specially abled persons and SC/ST candidates in
the written test shall be eligible for appearing in the type writing test
on computer, subject to the extent of 15 times of the number of
vacancies or as the Appointing Authority may deem appropriate but
in the said range all those candidates who secure the same
percentage of marks shall be included.

(iii) No candidate who failed to secure 50% in the aggregate with at
least 40% marks in case of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes &
Specially Abled Persons and 45% marks in case of all other
categories, in each test, at the competitive examination shall be
selected. If two or more of such candidates obtain equal marks in
the aggregate, their names shall be arranged on the basis of general
suitability.”

30. It would also be fruitful to extract para 69 and 73 of the

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajat Yadav

(supra), which are as under:

“69. We, however, sound a note of caution that our
observations above are relatable to the selection process of
the kind under consideration. It has not been shown with
reference to the recruitment rules that the same ordain
otherwise. If, at all, the recruitment rules governing any
selection process ordain otherwise than what is observed
above, obviously the recruitment rules would have
precedence subject to the condition that such rule passes the
test of constitutionality.

73. Now, turning to Chattar Singh (supra) which was
heavily relied on by the appellants, we have to record that
the ratio laid down therein must be appreciated in its proper
context. In that case, the scheme of examination clearly
provided that the marks obtained in the preliminary
examination would not be considered for the determination of
final merit. The rule therein, appearing from paragraph 5 of
the decision, read as follows:

5. Rule 13 of the Rules prescribes the mode of conducting
preliminary as well as Main Examination. It reads as
under:

“13. Scheme of Examination, personality and viva voce
test.– The competitive examination shall be conducted
by the Commission in two stages, i.e., Preliminary
Examination and Main Examination as per the scheme
specified in Schedule III. The marks obtained in the
Preliminary Examination by the candidates, who are
declared qualified for admission to the Main

(D.B. SAW/568/2022 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon25/03/2026
(Downloaded 25/03/2026atat05:44:23
09:06:33PM)
PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:11979] (52 of 54) [CW-14328/2020]

Examination will not be counted for determining their
final order of merit…”

(emphasis ours)

It is in view of this rule that this Court held that the claim of
reserved category candidates to be accommodated in the
open category on the basis of marks obtained will be
determined at the final stage. We find no reason to differ
from that principle. However, the facts of the present case
stand on a distinct footing. First, the main written
examination here is not a mere preliminary/screening test
but an integral and substantive component of the selection
process, carrying 300 marks out of a total of 400 –
constituting 75% of the final assessment. Its weight and
determinative value distinguish it from the limited preliminary
stage examination contemplated in Chattar Singh (supra),
thereby rendering that ratio inapplicable to the present
factual matrix. Secondly, the inclusion of a reserved category
candidate in the open merit list at the stage of shortlisting
cannot be equated with ‘migration’, for no benefit or
concession of reservation is availed. Such inclusion is purely
merit-based and, therefore, stands on a plane distinct from
the concept of ‘migration’ as addressed in Chattar Singh
(supra).”

31. Upon a comparative analysis of the scheme of

examination involved in the case of Rajat Yadav & Others

(supra) and the present selection, this Court finds a clear and

material distinction. In Rajat Yadav & Others (supra), the

stages of examination were composite in nature, each stage

contributing determinatively to the assessment of merit, thereby

justifying consideration of migration at different stages. In

contradistinction, the scheme under the present Rules of 1963,

particularly Rule 19, unequivocally provides that the ultimate

selection is to be based on merit determined primarily on the basis

of interview, with the preliminary examination serving only a

limited purpose of shortlisting candidates for participation in the

interview. Merely because a certain weightage is subsequently

assigned to the marks obtained in the preliminary examination, to

be reckoned along with academic weightage and performance in

interview at the stage of final evaluation, would not alter the

fundamental character of the preliminary examination as a

screening test. The preliminary stage does not, by itself, constitute

a determinative stage for adjudging inter se merit so as to attract

the principle of migration. The essence of the process remains that

merit is finally crystallised only after the interview stage, upon

application of the prescribed weightage criteria.

32. It is also significant to note that Rule 19 of the Rules of

1963 does not contemplate the preparation of any merit list at the

stage of the preliminary examination. The category-wise lists

prepared after the preliminary test, in the ratio of 1:3 of the

advertised vacancies, are merely for the purpose of shortlisting

eligible candidates to appear in the interview. Such lists cannot be

equated with a merit list, nor can they be treated as a basis for

conferring any right of migration from a reserved category to the

unreserved category.

33. In view of the aforesaid distinction in the statutory

framework and the scheme of examination, this Court is of the

opinion that the ratio laid down in Rajasthan High Court &

Another vs Rajat Yadav & Others (supra) on account of

exceptions carved out in the judgment itself by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, does not advance the case of the petitioners.

34. Lastly, it is also pertinent to note that the petitioners,

having participated in the selection process with full knowledge of

its structure and procedure, cannot be permitted to turn around

and challenge the same at an intermediate stage merely because

the outcome is not favourable to them. The doctrine of

acquiescence would, therefore, operate against them.

35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the claim of the petitioners for migration

to the unreserved category at the stage of written examination or

shortlisting is misconceived and contrary to the settled principles

of law.

36. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the

impugned screening result dated 26.11.2020 and the methodology

adopted by the respondent-RPSC for shortlisting candidates for

interview do not warrant interference in exercise of writ

jurisdiction. The above writ petitions, being devoid of merit, are

accordingly dismissed.

37. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

38. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on

record of each writ petition.

(ANAND SHARMA),J

MANOJ NARWANI /

(D.B. SAW/568/2022 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon25/03/2026
(Downloaded 25/03/2026atat05:44:23
09:06:33PM)
PM)

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Vishnu Datt Saini S/O Govind Narayan vs The State Of Rajasthan on 25 March, 2026

Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur