Rajasthan High Court
CW/10988/2009 of DEVENDRA SINGH BARATH AND ANR Vs STATE OF RAJ AND ORS on 31 August 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10988/2009 CNR: RJHC020158632009 | URN: CW / 19495U / 2009 1. Devendra Singh Barath son of Shri Surendra Singh Barath, aged about 36 years, resident of Plot No. 59/1, Vijaywari, Sikar Road, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Rati Ram Gurjar son
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10988/2009
CNR: RJHC020158632009 | URN: CW / 19495U / 2009
1. Devendra Singh Barath son of Shri Surendra Singh Barath, aged about 36 years, resident of Plot No. 59/1, Vijaywari, Sikar Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Rati Ram Gurjar son of Shri Laxman Singh Gurjar, aged about 24 years, resident of village Dhamasya, Post Jhajwad, Via Basko, District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Pr. Secretary to the Government, Agriculture Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director, Agriculture Marketing, Government of Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Non-Petitioners
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Ajay Gupta with
Mr. Hari Barath
Ms. Sampti Sharma
Mr. Keshav Singh Barath
For Respondent(s)
:
Ms. Manju Joshi, AGC with
Mr. Yash Soni
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
31/08/2026
1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 27.08.2009 issued by the respondent No.2, whereby appointment of the petitioners on the post of Junior Marketing Officer, has been cancelled.
2. Petitioners have come out with the case that the respondents- Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer issued an Advertisement No.5/2007-08 calling for applications from all eligible candidates on the post of Junior Marketing Officer. As per initial advertisement as many as 84 vacancies were advertised, out of which total 17 vacancies were for OBC candidates with further Sub-Division of 12 General OBC and 5 Women OBC. In the
(2 of 4) [CW-10988/2009] same advertisement 2 vacancies were shown for specially abled person and 21 for the departmental candidates.
3. Thereafter, a corrigendum was issued by the RPSC for modifying the number of vacancies and instead of 84 vacancies initially advertised, total 79 vacancies were later on sought to be advertised by the RPSC with no change, qua number of vacancies for departmental candidates or specially abled candidates, however, so far as OBC female is concerned, number of vacancies were reduced from 5 to 4, however, there was no modification in number of vacancies shown for OBC General.
4. It is also an admitted case that after participating in the recruitment process, the petitioners found their names at suitable places in the select list and later on were appointed on the post of Junior Marketing Officer vide appointment order dated 18.08.2009. After appointment, they joined the service and continued the work however, quite abruptly, without giving any opportunity of hearing or without issuing any notice an order dated 27.08.2009 was issued by the Director, Retiral Agricultural Marketing, whereby on account of selection of two candidates as specially abled persons from the category of departmental candidates, appointment earlier offered to the petitioners was cancelled. When the petitioners approached this Court, vide order dated 09.09.2009 interim order was granted in their favour, and by virtue of interim order, for last more than 16 years, they have been continuing in the department.
5. It is submitted that thereafter, direct recruitment to the aforesaid post has been undertaken on number of occasions and the vacancies were determined by the respondent-Department by
(3 of 4) [CW-10988/2009] treating the posts occupied by the petitioners as filled. The petitioners have also been granted all consequential benefits except promotion.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that discrepancy arose on account of one another S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1911/2009 filed by certain candidates claiming against quota of departmental candidates and also sought age relaxation. On account of interim orders passed in the aforesaid writ petition, the respondents were under an obligation to adjust them and consequently, in order to prevent appointment exceeding the number of vacancies, the respondents had to cancel the appointments of the petitioners, who were lowest in the select list for OBC candidates. It is submitted that no malicious action has been taken by the respondents against the petitioners and it was only on account of different interim orders passed in different writ petitions, the impugned order was passed by the respondents.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
8. Although, the writ petition was opposed by learned counsel for the respondents, yet they could not dispute the fact that petitioners had no lis either with the candidates claiming the quota of departmental candidates or in the quota of specially abled person. It has also not been disputed that as per the number of vacancies advertised for the category of OBC, the petitioners secured suitable place in the select list and were accordingly, appointed as per their merit. Under these circumstances, no proper justification has come forward for
(4 of 4) [CW-10988/2009] cancelling the appointment order of the petitioners so as to adjust other candidates, which have got nothing to do with the reservation or category claimed by the petitioners. In case, there was some dispute with regard to category of departmental candidates, the petitioners cannot be made scapegoat so as to give them way at the cost of the petitioners. Even otherwise, in the present case, where neither the eligibility of the petitioners is under question, nor their entitlement relating to their merit position is in dispute, nor the reservation quota was ever exceeded in the present case, cancelling the appointment of the petitioners without giving them any opportunity of hearing whatsoever is nothing, but arbitrary and whimsical exercise on the part of the respondents.
9. In view of above, this Court finds that the writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be, and is hereby allowed. Order dated 27.08.2009 passed by the Director, Agricultural Marketing is hereby quashed and set aside and appointment order dated 18.08.2009 is maintained as it is.
10. Since, the petitioners are already continuing with the respondent-Department, there is no requirement to give any direction for reinstatement. However, treating the petitioners to be appointee of appointment order dated 18.08.2009, they shall be granted all the consequential benefits under the Rules. Necessary exercise shall be conducted in this regard within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J 53/DIVYA