[2025:RJ-JP:384] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 312/2018 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13762/2015 1. Manoj Chopra Son Of Shri Shimbhu Dayal, Resident Of Village Tapukra, Near Water Tank, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar. 2. Dinesh Kumar Son Of Shri Dharam Singh, Resident Of VPO Pataliya Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar. ----Petitioners Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission, through Secretary, RPSC, Ajmer. ----Respondent For Review Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Jain For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 03/01/2025 Learned counsel representing RPSC has submitted that petitioners had filed a writ petition with a prayer to quash and set aside the letter/order dated 27.08.2015 whereby the petitioners were declared ineligible for appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub- Inspector. It is further submitted that on 17.09.2015 notices were issued by this Court and an interim order was passed allowing the petitioners to appear in the interview on a provisional basis. Further, it is submitted that pursuant to the Court’s directive the results of the interview were to be maintained in a sealed cover envelope on 06.01.2016 and the same to be presented [2025:RJ-JP:384] (2 of 3) [WRW-312/2018] before the Court on 18.01.2016. Thereafter, upon a perusal of the result, the Court, due to bonafide misrepresentation of the facts, drew a conclusion that both the petitioners were unqualified. Nevertheless, the petitioner no-2- Dinesh Kumar, subsequently sought information under the RTI Act, which revealed that he had secured a total score of 153.78 marks, comprising 143.78 marks in written examination and 10 marks in the interview, thereby exceeding the cut-off marks of 147.03. Conversely, the petitioner no.1 had secured a total score of 141.46 marks, which falls short of the cut-off marks. Furthermore, it is submitted that owing to an inadvertent mistake and oversight, the Court arrived at an erroneous conclusion, and the respective counsels were unable to clarify and bring the said fact to the Court’s attention in a timely manner. Consequently, the RPSC filed a recall application, which was subsequently followed by the present review petition. Additionally, it is submitted that petitioner no.2 had also filed a separate writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1849/2017), wherein, upon consideration of the aforementioned facts, the Court passed an order dated 25.03.2017, directing that one seat be kept vacant and reserved. Considering the holistic facts and circumstances of the case, taking into account the fact that Petitioner No.2-Dinesh Kumar, has obtained marks exceeding the cut off threshold and is included in the merit list, and additionally considering that one seat remains vacant as of the current date, this Court, in the interest of justice deems it apposite to allow the instant review petition, in accordance with the reasons articulated therein. [2025:RJ-JP:384] (3 of 3) [WRW-312/2018] Accordingly, the review petition is hereby allowed, and the writ petition, which was previously dismissed as having become infructuous due to petitioner’s marks being less than the cut-off marks, is revived, thereby granting the petitioner an opportunity to have their case heard on its merits, considering the changed circumstances. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13762/2015 is hereby directed to be listed for hearing in first week of February, 2025 along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1849/2017 & S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 66/2018, whereupon the Court shall consider the arguments on its merits of the petition, along with the revived petition. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/74