Rajasthan High Court
SAW/493/2026 of STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs SHRAWAN KUMAR S/O BHAIRU RAM on 11 August 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 493/2026 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2189/2002 CNR: RJHC020371332026 | URN: SAW / 1089U / 2026 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secy., Department Of Ayurved, Secretariat Jaipur. 2. The Director, Department Of Ayurved,
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 493/2026
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2189/2002
CNR: RJHC020371332026 | URN: SAW / 1089U / 2026
1.
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secy., Department Of Ayurved, Secretariat Jaipur.
2.
The Director, Department Of Ayurved, Ajmer, Rajasthan
----Appellants/Respondents
Versus
1.
Shrawan Kumar S/o Bhairu Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o V And P Jajod, Tehsil Sri Madhopur Dist. Sikar
----Respondent/Petitioner
2.
Rud Mal Kuldeep S/o Sunder Lal, R/o Khalipon Ki Bawari, Barmer
----Proforma Respondent
For Appellant(s)
:
Mr. Samee Khan, AAAG
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR 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
11/08/2026
1. This is an appeal assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15.01.2026, whereby, he has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent-writ petitioner and directed to give him the same benefit as granted to those persons who have been appointed vide order dated 01.05.2009.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the order dated 15.01.2026 is erroneous and the case of the petitioner cannot be said to be similar to those who were
(2 of 4) [SAW-493/2026] reinstated vide order dated 01.05.2009. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court stating that he had applied for the post of Junior Compounder/Nurse under the advertisement dated 24.04.1999 and he was placed in the final select list dated 19.03.2002 under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category created by the Department and has secured 55.9% marks in his diploma which was to be taken into consideration for framing of the overall merit. The merit list was prepared by the appellants and the final cutoff list was declared as 50.77% while the petitioner who possessed 55.9% marks was not considered for appointment.
3. The case of the appellant is that the candidates who secured upto 50.77% marks had been initially appointed on the basis that they had passed the diploma examination in the first attempt, whereas, the petitioner and like others who had passed diploma in the second, third or forth attempt were categorized to be lower in merit to the candidates who had passed the examination in first attempt.
4. The said aspect was challenged before this Court and a bunch of writ petitions came to be finalized in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 902/2002 and other connected appeals decided on 12.09.2008. The law was settled that on the basis of the attempt in passing the diploma examination, merit could not be compromised.
5. In view thereto, those petitioners who were there before the Court were offered appointment and the selection of those candidates who had been granted appointment solely on the basis of their passing of diploma in the first attempt was set aside. In
(3 of 4) [SAW-493/2026] the second round, the said candidates appeared before the Court and challenged the action alleging that their services have been terminated without following the principles of natural justice.
6. Resultantly, this Court directed the said candidates who had been earlier appointed to be reinstated.
7. The present petitioner thereafter filed writ petition alleging discrimination as he was higher in merit to those candidates who had been reinstated. As many as ten candidates from SC category along having merit upto 50.77% have been offered appointment while the writ petitioner having 55.99% marks was retained.
8. Learned counsel submits that as the present writ petitioner had not been considered in the earlier select list (which stood cancelled). In the aforesaid appeal, the petitioner could not be reinstated and cannot claim the same parity. He submits that there is an approach adopted by the learned Single Judge granting parity is erroneous.
9. We have considered the submissions.
10. We find that the petitioner cannot be said to have been a fence-sitter. He immediately filed a writ petition before this Court claiming his right on the basis of merit list. The action of the State in wrongfully terminating 48 candidates and subsequently, reinstating them on the basis of order passed by this Court, would not deprive the respondent-writ petitioner from appointment as admittedly, in the list of 48 candidates, 10 candidates were having much lower merit than the petitioner.
11. We agree with the order passed by the learned Single Judge where he specifically asserts that the principle of law that the candidate higher in merit cannot be deprived of his right for
(4 of 4) [SAW-493/2026] consideration of his appointment merely on the ground that he did not approach the Court while the candidates lower in merit have been benefited.
12. In these circumstances, we find that gross discrimination has occurred with the writ petitioner and he was required to be considered for appointment, moreso, as he possessed higher merit.
13. We dismiss the special appeal and uphold the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the directions passed by the learned Single Judge shall now be complied with.
14. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ 5/Gaurav/RIYA