ANSHUL KUMAR SHARMA S/O SHRI YOGESH KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CW/7537/2025 · 2025-05-19
Sudesh Bansal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 19038 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 19038 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:20944] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7537/2025 Anshul Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Dantiya, Alwar, Distt. Alwar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Dept. Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare (Sihfw), Jhalana Doongari Colony, Ghat Ki Guni, Jaipur- 302004 (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 19/05/2025
1. Petitioner has preferred instant civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 12.05.2025, questioning the criteria of selection (70% marks of technical education and 30% bonus marks) to prepare the merit list for the post of Pharmacist pursuant to advertisement dated 05.05.2023.
2. Undisputedly, such criteria is mentioned in the advertisement itself and petitioner, having duly acquainted with the same, has applied and participated in the recruitment process, however, after declaration of result, since petitioner could not succeed, hence, thereafter she has opted to question the criteria of selection, which is ex facie barred by the principle of estoppel.
3. Counsel for petitioner, without disputing the action of petitioner being barred by the principle of estoppel submits that criteria of selection is already under challenge in SBCWP No. 13921/2023 titled as Deepushree Vs. State of Rajasthan.
[2025:RJ-JP:20944] (2 of 2) [CW-7537/2025]
4. This Court is of the considered opinion that once the criteria of selection is already under challenge, which shall be considered on merits in the pending writ petition, petitioner need not to file a separate writ petition.
5. In view of above, counsel for petitioner, having instructions from petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
7. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /11