[2025:RJ-JP:45601] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15503/2018 Kamlesh Kanwar D/o Bahadur Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village And Post Gotan, District Nagaur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Rajasthan, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Chief Executive Officer-Cum-Member Secretary, Zila Parishad, Banswara 3. Chief Executive Officer-Cum-Member Secretary, Zila Parishad, Nagaur ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7765/2018 Ram Gopal Lodha S/o Nathulal Lodha, R/o - Village Piplodi, Tehsil Manohar Thana, District Jhalawar ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Depart, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Chief Executive Officer-Cum-Member Secretary, Zila Parishad Jhalawar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Saakshi Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with Mr. Prateek Saxena, Ms. Anjali Ranga, Mr. Ashutosh Udawat & Mr. Anshul Ranga HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 13/11/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:45601] (2 of 3) [CW-15503/2018] 1. Both these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners for issuing direction to the respondents to issue second list and fillup the total post of LDC that is 19246 as per the meeting held on 05.04.2017. 2. Both these writ petitions pertains to recruitment to the post of LDC initiated in the year 2013 as LDC Direct Recruitment-2013. 3. Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that the issue raised in the present writ petitions has already been settled and is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18145/2024 (Ramesh Chand Saini & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) alongwith other connected petitions decided on 04.09.2025. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also fairly admits that the case of the present petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment passed in the case of Ramesh Chand Saini (supra). 5. In case of Ramesh Chand Saini (Supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:- “42. Before parting, this Court deems it apposite to note with concern, the manner in which a recruitment process initiated in 2013 has generated unending streams of litigation, consuming valuable judicial time for more than a decade. While the right of an aspirant to ventilate grievances is sacrosanct, there must equally be recognition of the public interest in certainty, stability, and closure. Moreover, the endless contestation over settled issues not only burdens the administration of justice but also unsettles service cadres and thwarts efficient governance. Moreso, ultimately, this Court’s role is to safeguard fairness, not to assume the mantle of cadre management. Where [2025:RJ-JP:45601] (3 of 3) [CW-15503/2018] the field already stands settled by a coordinate Bench, judicial discipline demands deference rather than intervention. 43. The settled field cannot be unsettled merely on account of repetitive challenges which, in substance, seek to re-agitate matters already determined. In such a situation, judicial deference to the binding pronouncement of Division Bench is not merely a matter of prudence but of doctrinal compulsion. Intervention by this Court, in absence of demonstrable illegality, mala fides, or manifest arbitrariness post-adjudication, would transgress the limits of review and convert the Court into a super-manager of the service cadre, a role which the constitutional scheme does not envisage. 44. In light of the aforementioned, and taking note of the fact that the preliminary controversy is already adjudicated by the ratio encapsulated in Hari Om Meena (Supra), this Court is of a view that the ancillary issues have lost their value, for consideration and adjudication; moreover, are rendered infructuous with efflux of time and pronouncement of Hari Om Meena (supra). Accordingly, for all the reasons set out hereinabove, the present batch of petitions being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.” 6. In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petitions are also stand dismissed. 7. Stay application as well as pending application, if any, also stands disposed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /-16-17