[2025:RJ-JP:10061-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3090/2025 Kailash Chand Meena S/o Shri Mangal Ram Meena, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Vpo Bhuteri, Tehsil Bansur, District Kotputli, Behror (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan, Through Its Registrar General, Jhalamand Area, Jodhpur (Rajasthan). 2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arun Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vishnu Kant Sharma and Mr. Madhav Dadhich HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 06/03/2025 1. The petitioner seeks to challenge rejection of his candidature in the matter of direct recruitment to the cadre of District Judge. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after scrutiny of his application and ten judgments submitted along with the application, the petitioner submitted four judgments (Annexure-9, 10, 11 & 12). However, even thereafter the application has been illegally rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the reason assigned for rejection of the application is factually incorrect, perverse and contrary to material on record. He would submit that four new judgments [2025:RJ-JP:10061-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-3090/2025] which were submitted, were all argued by the petitioner and merely because in some of the orders, his name has not appeared as counsel, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not personally argued in those cases, as required under Rule 36 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010. Along with writ petition, two more judgments (Annexure-16 & 17) have been annexed to submit that if the respondents would have rejected those judgments for one reason or the other, one more opportunity ought to have been afforded to the petitioner to submit more judgments and he would have submitted other judgments (Annexure-16 & 17). 3. Relying upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Charles K. Sarkaria & Others vs. Dr. C. Mathew & Others reported in (1980) 2 SCC 752 and Karan Singh Yadav vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 1742, it is argued that the candidature should not be rejected on trivial grounds, when there is no allegation of false representation and as far as possible, a candidate should be allowed to participate in the process of selection to prove his merit on competitive basis. 4. On an advance copy, Shri A.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that even those judgments which were submitted subsequently i.e. Annexure-9, 10, 11 & 12, did not satisfy the requirement of law. He would submit that judgments (Annexure-9 & 10) were both beyond period of seven years and therefore, could not be accepted as it would be contrary to the provisions of rules governing recruitment. He would further submit that in two of these judgments, the name of the petitioner did not even appear as [2025:RJ-JP:10061-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-3090/2025] counsel and therefore, requirement of Rule 36 ibid that a candidate should have personally argued the case is not satisfied. 5. We have gone through the contents of the judgments (Annexure-9, 10, 11 & 12). The judgments i.e. Annexure-9 & 10 are dated 17.01.2017 and 17.02.2017, respectively. Apparently, these are the judgments beyond period of preceding seven years from the date of submission of application and therefore, as per requirement of Rule 36 of the Rules of 2010, these judgments could not be taken into consideration. Out of the other two judgments, we find that in judgment (Annexure-11), name of the counsel has not appeared to show that he personally appeared and argued the case. Though, as per the petitioner’s contention, he filed vakalatnama and personally appeared and argued the matter i.e. Criminal Regular Case No. 29/2016, in which judgment (Annexure-11) was passed but this fact is totally incorrect as vakalatnama containing name of the petitioner was filed in a complaint filed on behalf of Kamla Devi with the prayer for sending the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and not in Criminal Regular Case No. 29/2016. 6. Therefore, it is quite apparent that the deficiency of three judgments as was notified earlier could not be fulfilled. 7. The submission of more judgments along with the writ petition, cannot be allowed to be accepted. The requirement of the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the notification issued from time to time for removal of deficiency were all time bound in nature. Thus, the deficiency, if pointed out, was required to be removed within stipulated period. If the petitioner’s contention is accepted, the examination process will not come to [2025:RJ-JP:10061-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-3090/2025] an end and the candidates will keep on submitting documents after documents beyond the stipulated period. Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that the written examination is going to commence on 08.03.2025. 8. Strict adherence to the schedule of examination including submission of application, documents and information in time bound manner is necessary to ensure timely completion of the process of recruitment. Once a candidate fails to fulfill the requirement of law and fails to submit required documents/ credentials within the stipulated period, the candidate loses right to participate in the process of selection. 9. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the present petition. 10. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ Inder/Sudeepak/12