[2025:RJ-JP:25724] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 228/2023 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14101/2019 Champa Lal S/o Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Anandpura, Ramgarh, Jaisalmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Secretary, Rajasthan Sub-Ordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur. 3. Pankaj Jangir S/o Banwari Lal Jangir, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Dudhwakhara District Churu. 4. Vishnu Yadav S/o Shri Narayan Lal Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ranwan Road, Ward No.8, Chomu, Jaipur. 5. Dharmendra Kumar Saini S/o Shri Gopal Lal Saini, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Morrija, Bhojwala, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur. 6. Biju Prakash Meena S/o Shri Bansidhar Meena, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Malera, Post Jatwali Via Samod Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur. 7. Sohan Lal Gurjar S/o Narayan Lal Gurjar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Gurjaro Ka Mohalla, Soda, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk. 8. Shashikant Shukla S/o Shri Shiv Lal Shukla, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Baleta, Tehsil Malakhera, District Alwar. 9. Vinod Kumar Gayari S/o Shri Manna Lal Gayari, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Gayri Mohalla, Partapgarh, District Pratapgarh. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Singhi, Sr. Adv. asst. by Mr. Tarun Verma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 11/07/2025 1. As per Office report, present review petition has been filed with the delay of 182 days, for which a separate application u/s. 5 [2025:RJ-JP:25724] (2 of 4) [WRW-228/2023] of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay, has been filed by review petitioner. For reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed. The delay of filing review petition, is condoned. 2. Instant review petition has been filed by and on behalf of one of the original writ petitioner No.4– Champa Lal, out of other writ petitioners i.e. petitioners No.1 to 8, seeking to review/ recall the order dated 02.02.2023, dismissing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14101/2019 on merits. 3. In the main writ petition, answers of few of the questions, asked in the recruitment examination, conducted for the post of Lab Technician, were challenged. That challenge remained unsuccessful and the writ petition was dismissed on merits vide order dated 02.02.2023. Review petitioner along with other writ petitioners, were given sufficient opportunity of hearing. 4. Review petitioner has sought to raise a contention that in the writ petition, a misc. application dated 16.01.2023, filed by and on behalf of petitioner No.4 (review petitioner herein), seeking to provide details of the subject experts and their qualification as well as to disclose source of opinion, given by the experts to change the answer of Question No.12. 5. It has been urged that the application was not considered by the learned Single Judge, while deciding the writ petition on merits, vide order dated 02.02.2023. 6. A perusal of Para No.23 of the final Order dated 02.02.2023, indicates that the change of option from “D” to “A” of Question No.12 as per opinion of the subject expert in the final answer key, was challenged by the then counsel for petitioners and that [2025:RJ-JP:25724] (3 of 4) [WRW-228/2023] argument was taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. 7. The application, in respect of seeking details of the experts and their qualification as also their source of opinion, pertains to Question No.12, as admitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing for review petitioner, which was obviously not pressed during arguments. 8. Further, in Para Nos. 48, 49, 50 & 51 of the final order dated 02.02.2023, detailed discussion of change of answer of Question No.12 from option “D” to “A” was made. Material produced by and on behalf of writ petitioners and the material relied upon by the subject experts, were taken into consideration. Option “A” was held to be correct. The challenge by writ petitioners to the correctness of Option “A” instead of “D” was failed on merits as also was not found within scope of judicial review. 9. Therefore, filing of review petition by one of the writ petitioner i.e. petitioner No.4, on the ground that his application dated 16.01.2023 has not been considered in the order dated 02.02.2023, is wholly misplaced. Once the issue has been discussed on merits and the writ petition has been dismissed, all misc. applications filed in connecting with the issue involved therein, also stand disposed of. 10. This Court does not find any error apparent on the face of record. Otherwise also, the details of subject experts are not usually disclosed for one or other reason. 11. The review petition is devoid of substance, rather can be held to be a mischievous application, however, learned Senior Counsel submits that the review petition has been filed by [2025:RJ-JP:25724] (4 of 4) [WRW-228/2023] obtaining legal aid, hence this Court refraining itself to impose costs upon the review petitioner. However, this Court is of the opinion that before granting legal aid to any person by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur (RALSA), in respect of filing review of the order(s) passed on merits by the High Court, RALSA shall take legal opinion in the matter, as to whether the matter is fit for review or not. 12. As a result, the review petition is hereby dismissed. 13. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. 14. A copy of this Order be sent to Member Secretary, RSLSA for compliance. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/40