[2025:RJ-JP:46095] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17412/2025 Ranveer Singh S/o Het Ram Mali, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Sector-6, Pilli Chkki Ke Pass, Hanumangarh Junction, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner. 3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini Mr. Aamir Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG Mr. M.F Baig HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 14/11/2025 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayers: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'bleCourt may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further be pleased to: 1. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby the respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Lecturer(Political Science) with all consequential benefitsfrom the date persons lower in merit were given appointment as the petitioner has secured higher marks than those who have been given appointment namely Rameshwar Lal Jat, Manoj Kumar Rojh and MadanLalBagadiya; 2. Issue further appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the [2025:RJ-JP:46095] (2 of 3) [CW-17412/2025] action of the respondents may kindly be declared illegal by which they have given appointment to the lesser meritorious candidates. 3. Pass any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner. 4. Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied for the post of Lecturer (Political Science) pursuant to advertisement dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure-1) issued by respondent no.3. He further submitted that the petitioner has secured 327.64 marks, higher than those recommended for appointment. He also submitted that despite repeated request to to RPSC, the respondents have not considered candidature of present petitioner. 3. Mr. M.F. Baig accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.3 whereas Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. 4. Office is directed to reflect name of Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG and Mr. MF Baig as counsel for respondent(s). 5. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for parties and also the material placed on record, it appears that the marks were revised as per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, though the claim of the petitioner indicate that he has secured more marks as compared to selected and appointed candidates as mentioned in the writ petition. The petitioner has termed the action of the respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, therefore, it is appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation to the respondent(s) with [2025:RJ-JP:46095] (3 of 3) [CW-17412/2025] direction to the respondents to dispose of same after considering the merit of the petitioner. 6. Considered the grievance raised herein, the petitioner is given a liberty to submit a representation to the respondents- Authority within a period of 30 days raising all grounds and the respondents-Authority are directed to decide the representation with a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 30 days from date of receipt of representation. After passing the order, the respondents are under an obligation to communicate the decision to the petitioner either by way of speed post or through E-mail, if petitioner has provided E-mail in his representation. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, he has a liberty to approach this Court with fresh petition. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition with pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /109