[2025:RJ-JP:47249] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3477/2015 1. Jabbar Nath Sankhla S/o Shri Ghasinath Sankhla, Village Pipara,jaitaran,district Pali-343942 2. Chatara Ram S/o Shri Rupa Ram, Mukam Post Dakiya,tehsil Merta City, District Nagaurrajasthan ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The Director, Primary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner, Rajasthan 3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13592/2014 Gajendra Puri S/o Shri Sugan Puri, Village And Post Sensra, Tehsil Riyanbari, District Nagaur Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The Director, Primary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner, Rajasthan 3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2277/2015 1. Hari Ram S/o Shri Mastidan, Village Khaliyanau, Post Rajas, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Raj. 2. Bhawani Singh Shekhawat, S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh Shekhawat, Village And Post Sola, Via Patoda, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar Raj. [2025:RJ-JP:47249] (2 of 5) [CW-3477/2015] ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner, Rajasthan. 3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC Mr. Monu Kumar for Mr. Imran Khan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 19/11/2025 1. Since in all these three writ petitions common question is involved, therefore, the same are being decided by a common order. 2. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners for issuing direction to the respondents to give appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III in pursuance to the advertisement issued in the year 2006. The claim of the petitioners who belong to the OBC category and one General category is that the women candidates have been given appointment in excess of their advertisement against the vacancy by wrong implementation of reservation provisions for women. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the women candidates who have been selected on their own merits in [2025:RJ-JP:47249] (3 of 5) [CW-3477/2015] their category are counted against the vacancies reserved for women category, then certain members of male candidates would get selected. It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the respondents after realizing their mistake have created certain number of posts so as to accommodate the equal number of male candidates in their own category in place of women category candidates who have been declared selected in excess of their reservation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the issue has been settled back in case of Naresh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3414/2009 decided on 20.09.2011. He also submits that no candidates of OBC category or General category lower in merit to the petitioners have been accorded appointment. He also submits that total number of vacancies which were advertised have already been filled and the vacancies created subsequent have also been filled in subsequent recruitment. 5. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record. 6. The only grievance raised by counsel for the petitioners is that the women candidates have been given appointment in excess to the vacancies earmarked for them by wrong implementation of the reservation policy for women. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show whether any candidate lower in merit to the petitioners has been given appointment. On a query put-forth by the Court to the counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondents, they have admitted the fact that the total number of vacancies which were [2025:RJ-JP:47249] (4 of 5) [CW-3477/2015] advertised have already been filled. However, counsel for the petitioner states that certain number of vacancies were created so as to accommodate the male candidates. 7. To the extent of excess appointment of women candidates, it is well settled principle of law that no appointments in excess of the advertised vacancies can be made as the same would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as such in case of Arup Das & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors. : (2012) 5 SCC 559. 8. It is not in dispute that subsequent to the recruitment of the year 2006, various other recruitment have also been completed for the post of Teacher Grade-III and all the vacancies which were created on subsequent stage have also been filled in the subsequent recruitment. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Jadon Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17505/2015 decided on 25.03.2025 observed as under:- “4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) is unable to refute the aforementioned contentions or substantiate the availability of seats/ survival of the lis in hand. 5. In pursuance of the contentions noted insofar, this Court deems it apposite to place reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in State of Orissa & Anr. v. Raj Kishore Nanda & Ors. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777, Girdhar Kumar Dadhich Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2009) 2 SCC 706, Union of India v. B. Valluvan reported in (2006) 8 SCC 686 and Raj Rishi Mehra & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 243, and the circulars issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel dated 19.07.2001 bearing No. F.7(2)/DOP/A-2/81 Pt. and Øekad i-7 ¼2½ [2025:RJ-JP:47249] (5 of 5) [CW-3477/2015] dkfeZd@d&2@81 ikVZ dated 13.01.2016 passed by jktLFkku ljdkj dkfeZd ¼d&2½ foHkkx, whereby it is made unambiguous that qua the selection process for any public service examination, the waiting/reserved list lapses after a span of six months from the date of its issuance, and if appointments are already made, then no judicial interference can be made at a belated stage.” 9. In view of the above, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are dismissed being devoid of merit. 11. Since the main petitions are dismissed, pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /75-77