[2025:RJ-JP:47672] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14557/2025 Kartikeya Singh Chauhan Son Of Shri Kamaljeet Singh Chauhan, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of House No. 362, Hanuman Nagar Extension, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur Road, Ajmer Through Its Secretary. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government, Department Of Medical Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Harshit Mittal for Mr. S.K. Saksena For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig Mr. Rohit Tiwari AGC, Ms. Tanvisha Pant & Mr. Vivek Guwalani for Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 25/11/2025 1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayers: “An appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents for declaring the petitioner eligible for the post in-question i.e. Assistant Professor (Broad Speciality) - Oto-Rhino-Laryngology under General (Un-reserved Category) in pursuance to the advertisement dt. 27.11.2021 (Annex-1) for the purpose of interview with all consequential benefits. (ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the quashing the adverse order, if passed, during the pendency of the writ petition frustrating the cause of the writ petition as well as any order, [2025:RJ-JP:47672] (2 of 3) [CW-14557/2025] already passed prior to filing of the writ petition but not communicated to the petitioner. iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents, which this Hon'ble court deems just, and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) Cost of the writ petition.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that RPSC has invited application for recruitment on the post of Assistant Professor in the category of (broad speciality) and super speciality by advertisement notice dated 27.11.2021 wherein petitioner has also filed application in the (broad speciality)-Oto-Rhino- Laryngology and petitioner was declared as successful by recruitment result dated 08.11.2024. He further submitted that after document verification, the RPSC has further declared 22 eligible candidates selected to be called for interview but roll number of petitioner was not among the selected candidates. He further submitted that there are total 9 vacancies and as per criteria minimum 27 candidate are required to be called for interview. He also submits that even the RPSC has not disclosed or declared the marks secured by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of RPSC while placing reliance upon judgment in case of State of Rajasthan and Anr. Vs. Kavita Godara and Ors., D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 103/2021 decided on 02.03.2021 submits that the practice adopted by RPSC is upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. He further placed reliance upon order dated 03.05.2024 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 283/2020 Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. RPSC passed by a Co-ordinate Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur and submits that the RPSC is not under any obligation to disclose [2025:RJ-JP:47672] (3 of 3) [CW-14557/2025] marks unless recruitment process is over as it relates to transparency and confidentiality of the process. 4. Learned counsel appearing for RPSC also submits that out of 9 seats three are for general and nine candidates were called by result notification and all have superior merit than the petitioner. He further submits that the RPSC is in practice to declare result without adopting category wise result in public domain but while selecting the candidate, the candidate is applied for effective implementation of reservation policy and as per category the candidates were called for interview. He also apprised the Court that in some of the category no one was found eligible to be called for interview but said category has not been disclosed in result notification dated 15.07.2025 and that is the reason why the selected candidates are in number 22. 5. Considering aforesaid statement, the petitioner has failed to show any discrimination or malpractice adopted by RPSC therefore he cannot pursue the remedy before this Court. Thus, the writ petitioner has failed to show any act contrary to the recruitment process, hence, the writ petition is hereby dismissed with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /16