[2025:RJ-JP:25957] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9735/2017 Rajpal Yadav S/o Shri Rohitashav Yadav, R/o Vill. And Post Gothra, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar Raj. ----Petitioner Versus Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur Through Chairman. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10360/2017 Indraj Singh Yadav S/o Shri Gokul Chand, R/o Dhani Dhola Kothi, Vpo Jugalpura, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, State Agriculture Management Institution Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur Through Its Secretary ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10549/2017 Naval Kumar S/o Radhakishan, R/o House No. 3F7, Vikas Nagar, Bundi Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary Department Of Revenue, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Rajasthan Sub-Ordinate And Ministerial Staff Selection Board Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Agriculure Management Institute Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur. ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:25957] (2 of 5) [CW-9735/2017] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10690/2017 Nirottam Singh S/o Shri Puran Mal, R/o Village Rajgarh, Post Suhas, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur Through Secretary, State Agriculture Management Institution Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11879/2017 Pooranmal S/o Shri Omprakash Mali, R/o Bagwano Ka Bas, Ward No. 2, Pokran, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer. ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Sub- Ordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, State Agriculture Management Institute Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur. ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12551/2017 Sumer Yadav S/o Shri Babu Lal Ji Yadav, R/o Newta Road, Ganwalon Ki Dhani, Village Muhana, Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur Raj. 2. The Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur Raj. ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:25957] (3 of 5) [CW-9735/2017] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13306/2017 Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Ramkhilari, R/o Village And Post Maharawar, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur Through Secretary, State Agriculture Management Institution Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Sharma Mr. Mahendra Sharma Mr. Ram Pratap Saini Mr. Amit Jindal Ms. Deepti Jindal Ms. Neetu Bhansali Mr. Akshit Gupta for Mr. Mahendra Shah, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG with Mr. Kartikeya Sharma Ms. Manju Joshi, AGC Mr. Sandeep Kumar Maheshwari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 12/07/2025 1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are aspirants for the post of Patwari, pursuant to Direct Recruitment-2015. The petitioners have questioned the deletion of few of questions bearing Nos.1, 6, 36, 86, 126, 127, 130, 138, 141, 143 & 146 of the main written examination conducted on 24.12.2016 and has prayed to revive these questions and consequently, to prepare merit list afresh. 2. Counsel for the writ petitioners, vehemently argued that the petitioners have attempted such questions in the main examination [2025:RJ-JP:25957] (4 of 5) [CW-9735/2017] and the answers opted by the petitioners are correct, as per the standard text book(s) of the Rajashan Board and NCERT, but the respodents, without obtaining any opinion of subject Experts, have deleted such questions and prepared merit list, due to which the merit of the petitioners became adversely affected. 3. In counter of the above, learned Additional Advocate General argued that nearabout 4426 posts of Patwari were notified vide advertisement dated 04.11.2015. A huge number of aspirants applied. A preliminary examination was conducted and only those aspirants, who passed preliminary examination were made to appear in the main examination. In the main examination, near about 99,955 candidates appeared. Above questions were deleted due to uncertainty of one correct answer, that too, as per the opinion/report of Subject Experts and thereafter only the merit list has been prepared. All the candidates have been treated equally. There is no allegation of biasness or intransparency in conducting the examination. It is not the case that merit of petitioner has been examined differently than all other aspirants. Hence, merely because the writ petitioners do not agree with deletion of few of questions, no prima facie case for interference is make out, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reference of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ran Vijay Singh v. State of UP:(2008) 2 SCC 357 & Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan:(2021) 2 SCC 309, has been given. 4. During the course of arguments, taking into consideration the fact that on the basis of final answer key, prepared after deletion of [2025:RJ-JP:25957] (5 of 5) [CW-9735/2017] above referred questions, result has been declared and appointments to the selected candidates have been given; selected candidates are not parties even in representative capacity in these writ petitions and it is not possible to revise the result without hearing of the selected candidates, counsel for petitioners, having instructions from the petitioners do not press these writ petitions on merits. 5. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed as not pressed. 6. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/75-80 & 82