[2025:RJ-JP:5908-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2131/2025 Vimla Kumari Malav D/o Shri Bihari Lal Malav, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Neelkanth Colony, Anta, Baran, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan, Jodhpur Through Its Registrar. 2. Registrar (Exam), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Jain, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Meena, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishnu Kant Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order 11/02/2025 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of her candidature vide impugned order dated 27.01.2025. 3. Earlier also the petitioner had applied for recruitment to Higher Judicial Services but her application was rejected on identical ground, as in the present case, that the petitioner has not been an Advocate for a period of not less than seven years as on the last date of submission of application form, as envisaged under Rule 33(III) of the Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010 (for short, 'the Rules of 2010'). 4. This Court, referring to the provisions contained in Rule 33 of the Rules of 2010, held that in order to become eligible, requirement of having been an Advocate for a period not less than [2025:RJ-JP:5908-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-2131/2025] seven years as on the last date of submission of the application form has to be fulfilled. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and the personal details of the petitioner that upon her appointment as Judicial Officer vide order dated 04.07.2015, the petitioner got suspended her enrolment as an Advocate and later on, she was removed vide order dated 27.10.2017, followed by resumption of license with effect from 28.05.2019 and relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Dheeraj Mor Vs. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Civil Appeal No.1698/2020, it was concluded that the petitioner was not eligible in terms of provision of her eligibility contained in the Rules. 5. The rejection of candidature of the petitioner in the present selection process is also founded on the same basis. Therefore, in our opinion, the issue raised in this petition is concluded by our order dated 11.07.2022 passed in D.B. CWP No.9482/2022 filed by the petitioner earlier, rejecting her candidature in the previous selection process. 6. Accordingly, this petition is also dismissed. (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ F.R. Bohra/Danish/11