[2025:RJ-JP:14167] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11738/2015 Deepak Sharma S/o Shri Khaimchand Sharma, aged about 30 years, resident of Mohalla, Vamanpura, Bayana, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Malviya National Institute of Technology, JLN Marg, Jaipur through its Registrar. 2. Assistant Registrar (Estt.), Malviya National Institute of Technology, JLN Marg, Jaipur. 3. Selection Committe, for appointment on Non-teaching post, in pursuance of the advertisement No.02/MNIT/Estt/2014 of Malviya National Institute of Technology, JLN Marg, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shobit Tiwari, Adv. For Respondent- MNIT : Mr. Ravi Chirania, Adv. With Mr. S.K. Panwar, Mr. Gaurav Kumawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 27/03/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent-MNIT had issued an advertisement for recruitment on the post of Technical Assistant Mechanical Engg. (Work Shop) in the year 2014. It is submitted that in the said advertisement it was categorically denoted that if number of candidates applying for the said post would be less than ten times, the break up of selection procedure would be divided into four schemes, subjective test (40 marks), trade-test (25 marks), experience marks (15 marks) and interview (20 marks). It is further submitted that on sanctioned ten posts, only 26 candidates had [2025:RJ-JP:14167] (2 of 3) [CW-11738/2015] applied, qua first three stages, and the petitioner was at top of the list in merit in consonance with the aggregate marks. However, qua interview, the petitioner was only awarded 3 marks out of 20. 2. It is further submitted that as per Section 23 (12) of the NIT Statute of 2007, the Selection Committee is empowered to recommend the name of more ‘suitable candidates’ after interview, on the basis of overall complete assessment of the candidate. Nevertheless, as available seats were ten in number and the petitioner was at No.3 in merit, his name was ought to be recommended, as the phrased terminology used is most ‘suitable candidate’. In this regard, reliance is placed upon judgment of this Court in Neel Kamal Vs. Union of India & Ors. passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6917/2014 decided vide order dated 27.05.2022. Howsoever, petitioner has fairly conceded that the said order as per his best information has been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court and is subjudice thereafter. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the lis in hand is no more res-integra and in identical set up facts though pertaining to different post, wherein sole candidate was also found unfit in the interview process and clause-12 of the advertisement therein, was duly considered. In these facts and circumstances having available seats on merit in spite of merit, the candidature of the petitioner therein was dismissed. It is submitted that the said matter was approved by Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1126/2022 titled as Sachin Kumar Airan Vs. Malviya National Institute of Technology & anr. decided by vide order dated 21.10.2022 arising out of impugned judgment dated 13.07.2022. [2025:RJ-JP:14167] (3 of 3) [CW-11738/2015] 4. In light of the same, Mr. Ravi Chirania has submitted that as per the principal of judicial propriety and discipline, this Court may decide the present petition in the light of the judgment of higher forum which is on akin facts. 5. Heard the contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record, and analyzed the facts. 6. Considering the fact that an identical issue was adjudicated vide judgment dated 27.05.2022 passed in SBCWP No.6917/2014 however, as per the knowledge of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is noted that the same is stayed by the Division Bench and the fact that though SBCWP No.9601/2015 which is a later judgment is not considered; the dictum of this very Court in passing the same and therefore, distinguishable, yet on account of the fact that Division Bench has taken a view under Clause-12, this Court following the principles of judicial propriety, parity and judicial discipline deems it proper to dispose of the present petition without going into merit of the case. 7. Present petition is accordingly, disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /9