[2025:RJ-JP:40465-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 425/2023 Vikash Son Of Shri Mani Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Amarpura, Post Bhuwari, Tehsil Rajgarh District Churu, Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Revenue Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Gokhale Lane, Opp. Collectrate Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Line, Ajmer (Raj.). 4. Radhe Shyam Meena Son Of Shri Ramkaran Meena, aged about 28 years, Resident Of Nai Kothi Ki Dhani, Village Badi Ka Bass, Post Beelwa, District Jaipur (Raj.) 5. Shailendra Singh Rao Son Of Shri Vijay Singh Rao, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Nai Kothi Ki Dhani, Village And Post Boyana, Tehsil Mavli, District Udaipur (Raj.) 6. Vijender Kumar Son Of Shri Jagdeesh Kumar, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of 23 Ptd Khokhranwali, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.) 7. Sanwar Lal Mundotiya Son Of Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Near Shiv Temple Ragran Mohalla Sanwatsar, District Ajmer (Raj.) 8. Vinod Kumar Son Of Shri Kushal Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Chak 32 Kyd, Khajuwala, District Bikaner (Raj.) 9. Umesh Purbia Son Of Shri Suresh Purbia, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Narahingpura, Gogunda, District Udaipur (Raj.) 10. Ramsingh Bairwa Son Of Shri Nand Lal Bairwa, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Bairwa Dhani, Post Golakabas, Tehsil Rajgarh District Alwar (Raj.) ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:40465-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-425/2023] For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma, Adv. with Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Adv. Ms. Kritika Rajawat, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Bhardwaj, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Nalin G Narain, Adv. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 06/10/2025 1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that similar D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.56/2023 has already been decided and dismissed. The Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.56/2023 has examined the controversy and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and held as under:- “11. Thus, the learned Single Judge has gone with the experts who have supported the process of normalization as an equalizing impact which was neither in contradiction to the Rules of 2019 nor to any other prevailing law. The learned Single Judge has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the experts were not under any kind of cloud and the normalization was required to be taken place. The examination conducted on a day prior to Karwa Chauth was an accommodation which has been widely done on a festival which is more participative for the female candidates, and thus, there is no wrong in having most of the female candidates on the shifts on 23.10.2021, whereas the Karwa Chauth on 24.10.2021. 12. This Court thus holds that the experts opinion has rightly culminated into finality with the formula for normalization giving an equal strength to all the candidates who participated in terms of chances of success. This Court concludes that a similar playing field for the fourth shifts has been dealt with. This Court finds that the examination was conducted in four batches and the method of normalization method was uniformly applied across as per the parameters settled by the Expert Committee, and thus, the process of examination was sterling worth. The report of the Expert Committee is not under challenge. The merit list has resulted into filling of the posts. 13. This Court, after examining the record, finds that the expert committee was not under any kind of [2025:RJ-JP:40465-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-425/2023] cloud and normalization/equalization/scaling are the techniques, which are statistical in nature and used to dismantle the disparity between the participative recruitment candidates and these are done to check the impact of any disadvantage or extraordinary advantage being extended to only one set of participants on account of their question papers or shifts. The recruitment has also culminated into finality and all appointments have been given in pursuance of the same.” 2. The present Special Appeal Writ is accordingly, dismissed mutatis mutandis. 3. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ HEENA/MAHIMA/196