[2025:RJ-JP:23785-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 417/2024 Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer ----Appellant Versus 1. Ravi Kumar Rachhoya S/o Bhairu Lal Rachhoya, Aged About 32 Years, R/o A-130B, Shyam Mitra Mandal Nagar, Vkia Road No. 5, Murlipura, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Dharm Pal S/o Raji Ram, aged about 35 years, R/o Village 4Kk, Tehsil Padampur Via Chunawadh, 4Kk Sriganganagar(Raj.) 3. Deputy Secretary, Skill, Employment And Entrepreneurship Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. MF Baig HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 30/06/2025 1. Heard. 2. This appeal arises out of an interim order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the respondent-writ petitioner has been provisionally allowed to participate in the training programme, though making it clear that the candidature of the writ petitioner shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Rajasthan Public Service Commission would submit that such a direction amounts to finally allowing the writ petition and it is virtually an order [2025:RJ-JP:23785-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-417/2024] granting final relief. He would submit that change in preference is not permissible under any circumstance in view of authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Manish Bakawale & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7721 of 2021), decided on 17.12.2021. 4. Irrespective of the merits of the case, we find that the order of the learned Single Judge is only of provisional nature. It makes very clear that the candidature of the writ petitioner is subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. That clearly means that in the event the writ petition is dismissed, the petitioner will have to be ousted. 5. Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and that the issue has been now settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra), we would request the learned Single Judge to finally hear and decide the petition itself one way or the other on merits, on the next date of hearing. 6. With the said observations, the appeal is dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR-RAHUL/14