[2025:RJ-JP:48551-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 273/2024 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus 1. Maharaja Surajmal Agriculture College, Village Rahimpur Post Nekpur, Tehsil Rupwas District Bharatpur Run By Shri Yadram Tulsiram Maderana Shiksha Samiti, Sinpini, Mahuwa, District Bharatpur Through Its Secretary, Ranveer Singh Maderna Son Of Shri Tulsiram, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village Rahimpur, Post Nekpur, Tehsil Rupwas, District Bharatpur. 2. Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University, Jobner, Jaipur, Through Its Registrar. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG assisted by Mr. Hardik Singh, Mr. Shubhendu Pilania, Mr. Vinayam Saran, Ms. Mahi Choudhary & Ms. Mansi Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Bansal with Mr. Pawan Sharma HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 28/11/2025 1. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment passed in the case of Shri Shyam Seva Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.816/2022) at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, would have no application to the case in hand before the learned Single Judge. [2025:RJ-JP:48551-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-273/2024] He submits that while new police had already come into force at the time of impugned judgment and that he could not rely on Shri Shyam Seva Samiti (supra) as at the time of Shri Shyam Seva Samiti (supra) case, there was no policy in existence. He further submits that the aspect regarding prospectivity of the new policy has been considered in the impugned judgment. Although, there is no challenge to the provisions of the policy which provide under Clause 4.2, that all the pending applications shall have to be decided by moving a fresh application under the policy. Similarly, as per the policy, the application would have to be filed afresh for increasing the number of seats and the pending application, therefore, had become redundant after the introduction of the new policy. He further submits that the respondents had not challenged the Clauses of the new policy before the Court and, therefore, learned Single Judge has erred in deciding the writ petition in light of the judgment passed in Shri Shyam Seva Samiti (supra). 2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-writ-petitioner submits that the writ petitioner had already been approved for enhanced number of seats and, therefore, there was no occasion to again apply under the new policy. The conditions laid down under the new policy, would not be applicable to cases, which were pending before the Court. It is meant for new colleges and not for existing colleges. The Committee had already recommended the case of the writ-petitioner-Institution for extension of seats vide their report dated 10.06.2021. 3. We have considered the submissions. 4. We noted that the State Government introduced a new policy with regard to opening of the new colleges in the State of [2025:RJ-JP:48551-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-273/2024] Rajasthan, which has been brought into force from 20.09.2022. The recommendation of the writ-petitioner-Institution was not finalized and was under consideration. The new policy, however, requires fresh online application to be filed. 5. On close examination of para 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of the policy, it would be apparent that the same is for new agriculture colleges to apply for the number of seats and for establishment. The applications are to be applied online and within the time prescribed therein. Those, which are pending for enhancement in number of seats, would have to apply again and old application forms would be deemed to have been cancelled automatically. 6. Para 4.3 of the Policy also prescribes for an online calendar for application. However, in the case before us, the stage of application was over. The Committee had already considered the application and had recommended for extension of seats vide their report dated 10.06.2021. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that any application was pending on the day, as per Clause 4.2. Therefore, the case of the writ-petitioner-Institution, cannot be treated to be that of applying under the new policy and old policy applications where the seats have already been recommended, would be only left for the purpose of implementation. In Shri Shyam Seva Samiti (supra), the view which was taken, was not challenged by the appellants. 7. We are also of the view that the new policy would apply for the new agriculture colleges, which would like to get an extension of seats from 60 to 120 or for establishing new agriculture colleges and would not be applicable to those, who have already applied and where the recommendation has also been made. If a [2025:RJ-JP:48551-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-273/2024] different interpretation is taken, the entire process which has already been concluded in the recommendation of the extension of the seats, would become redundant. Such is not the intention of the new policy. 8. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The respondents, therefore, would be bound to issue NOC to the Institution for enhancement on the basis of the due recommendations made by the Committee on 10.06.2021. 9. The appeal, therefore, fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/RAJAT/54