VIKRAM YADAV SON OF SHRI MADAN LAL YADAV v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CW/9970/2025 · 2025-07-18
Sudesh Bansal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23154 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23154 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:26920] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9970/2025 Vikram Yadav Son Of Shri Madan Lal Yadav, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 10, Swamiyo Ka Mohalla, Bilandpur, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 303803. ----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Administrative Reforms, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamal Kumar Mathur For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 18/07/2025
1. Petitioner is one of the aspirant in the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination- 2023 and applied under the category of Blind (Low Vision). Petitioner has not been shortlisted in the list dated 02.01.2025, published by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission with cut off marks of each category.
2. The grievance of petitioner is that in the list dated 02.01.2025, the Roll Number of candidates, who have been posted in mains examination and declared shortlisted for interview have not been shown category-wise, but this Court finds that in the list
[2025:RJ-JP:26920] (2 of 2) [CW-9970/2025] dated 02.01.2025, the category-wise cut off date has clearly been indicated.
3. Counsel for petitioner could not show that in the result of previous RAS & RTS Combined Competitive Examinations or at any point of time, the result of mains examination was ever published category-wise nor counsel for petitioner is able to show any Rule or Circular to effect. Petitioner has only apprehension that in the list dated 02.01.2025, the ratio of selected candidates category-wise might not have been maintained by the RPSC, while shortlisting the candidates for interview.
4. This Court finds that without providing any substantive material, apprehension of petitioner may not be held to be genuine.
5. In view of above, counsel for petitioner, does not press this writ petition and same is hereby dismissed as not press.
6. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /5