SAROJ KUMARI D/O BHAG SINGH v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CW/13603/2025 · 2025-11-01
Ashok Kumar Jain
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 49006 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 49006 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:43878] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13603/2025 Saroj Kumari D/o Bhag Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 108, Moti Nagar, Gujar Ki Thadi, District Jaipur- 302019. ----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Panchayati Raj And Rural Development, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director, Directorate Of Elementary Education, Bikaner, (Raj.).
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises, Sitabari, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302018, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Neel Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore Mr. Amogh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saurabh Sharma for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 01/11/2025
1. Mr. Saurabh Sharma on behalf of Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG accepts notice for respondent no. 1 whereas Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2.
2. Office is directed to reflect names of Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG and Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, Advocate as counsel for respondent(s).
[2025:RJ-JP:43878] (2 of 2) [CW-13603/2025]
3. It has come to notice that similar controversy has been decided by this Court in case of Hemlata Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11736/2025) and in case of Sudesh Kumar Goyal Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2023 (10) SCC 54, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the controversy and held that once the selected candidates joins pursuant to their selection, the vacancies are exhausted, and resignation by such candidates thereafter would not create any right in favour of reserved list/waiting list candidates.
4. In view of aforesaid, the writ petition has no force.
5. Hence, the writ petition along with all pending applications stands disposed of.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /6