[2025:RJ-JP:13844] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 112/2017 Sita Ram Son Of Shri Hardeo Singh, Dhani Khatiyan Wali, Village And Post Bavri, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur 2. The Director, Secondary Education Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad For Respondent(s) : Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy. G. C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 26/03/2025 1. The present review petition is filed assailing the order dated 27.04.2016, by which the writ petition registered as SBCWP No. 3256/2006 was dismissed on the ground on delay and laches. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Division Bench vide order dated 16.02.2017 passed in DBSAW Mo. 1002/2016 had condoned the delay and without expressing any opinion on merits, and liberty was given to file review application and the same be considered in accordance with law. 3. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an advertisement was issued on 28.07.2003, inviting applications for the post of Physical Instructor and due to Circular dated 16.08.2003, the marks obtained in compulsory subject of vocational course as well as marks obtained in optional course of Bridge course were not considered. The present petition is filed assailing the said irregularity. [2025:RJ-JP:13844] (2 of 4) [WRW-112/2017] 4. It is further submitted that the relevant clause of Circular dated 16.08.2003 was quashed and set aside and merit list was directed to be prepared accordingly. Qua the hindrance caused to notice dated 31.07.2003, while preparing the merit list, it is submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the issue of vocational course has permitted the Bridge course which was taken care of, by similarly situated persons, to be eligible for bonus marks. 5. Accordingly, when the matter came up before the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the petition was dismissed on the ground on delay and laches as petition was filed in the year 2006 vis-a-vis the advertisement issued in the year 2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not only relied upon the notification but has also submitted that at the said relevant time, judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this court passed in Shiv Ram Bajyia Vs. State registered as SBCWP No. 347/2007 decided on 10.08.2007 was relied upon and the same was a part of record wherein, even the similarly situated persons have approached the Court in the year 2007, yet their petition was allowed on merits. 6. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the dictum encapsulated in (2020) 14 SCC 577 titled as Mathew David Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the principle of parity was considered. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection and has submitted that against the PTI Grade III, appointment which issue on District wise cadre under Rule 1971, fresh recruitment has taken place and as on date, no seats are lying vacant. It is further submitted that [2025:RJ-JP:13844] (3 of 4) [WRW-112/2017] thereafter, advertisements of the years 2008, 2011, 2013 and 2018 were issued and appointments were made. 8. Additionally, learned counsel has submitted that the judgment of Shiv Ram Bajyia (Supra), is distinguishable from the matter in hand as vide order dated 10.08.2007, the Court has allowed the petitioner on the documents pertaining to sports and bonus marks therein and qua the issue of delay in filing the petition qua the equivalence of higher secondary, the Court has not taken into consideration that issue thereby, thence, was entirely different. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that in the said matter, interim order was granted and same was decided in the year 2007 and thereafter, on different aspect of sports bonus marks, petition was allowed. It is further submitted that the present petition is filed in the year 2016 and thereafter, fresh appointments are made, therefore, the procedure of parity, is not tenable. 9. Having heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, upon a perusal of the material available on record and considering the directions passed by the Division Bench, this Court is of the following view:- 9.1 That the ground of delay and laches in the matter is rightly adjudicated as order was passed in the year 2016 and requirement for consideration of parity, on the ground which are submitted and noted herein above are distinguishable. 9.2 That the notification released in the year 2003, is not applicable in the present set of facts and circumstances, as the matter was rightly dismissed on delay and laches and principle of parity is not applicable herein. [2025:RJ-JP:13844] (4 of 4) [WRW-112/2017] 10. Accordingly, present review petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed. (SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /41