[2025:RJ-JP:9367-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3150/2025 Reena Mishra D/o Shri Ramchandra Mishra, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 14 2Nd Floor Matruchhaya Building, Opposite Woodland Theatre Virar- West Palghar-401303, Maharashtra ----Petitioner Versus The Honble High Court For Judicature of Rajasthan, Through Registrar (Examination) Jodhpur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devkrishna Purohit with Mr. Chitransh Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Vishnukant Sharma HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 04/03/2025 The challenge to rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is based on the ground that even though, six judgments which were subsequently submitted by the petitioner did not show that the matter was personally argued by the petitioner but as there was a Vakalatnama which included name of present petitioner also, therefore, the petitioner fulfilled requirement of Rule 36 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (for short ‘Rules of 2010’ hereinafter). The second submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents are acting discriminatory inasmuch as another candidate, namely, Heena Mohan Lal had also submitted certain judgments which were not personally [2025:RJ-JP:9367-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-3150/2025] argued by her but her name was shown in Vakalatnama and yet she has been allowed to participate in the process of selection. Answer to petitioner’s two submissions is as below:- Rule 36 of the Rules of 2010, which governs selection, is reproduced hereinbelow: “36. Submission of application.- (1) While submitting application, candidate shall furnish particulars of 10 Judgments of the preceding seven years in which he has argued personally. He shall produce such judgments at the time of interview also. (2) Every application shall be accompanied by a certificate from the District Judge concerned where ordinarily the applicant is practicing, as to the fitness, character and length of actual practice of the candidate alongwith such other documents as may be specified. In case the applicant is practicing in the High Court, the certifying authority shall be Registrar of the concerned High Court.” A reading of the above rule makes it unequivocally clear that while submitting application, candidate is required to furnish particulars of ten judgments of the preceding seven years and also required to produce the certified copy of such judgments before the main examination, as prescribed by the recruiting authority. The rule in unequivocal terms further stipulates that the candidate is required to provide particulars of final orders/judgments personally argued by him, not being interlocutory orders, bail orders, orders based on compromise or orders of withdrawal of the case. [2025:RJ-JP:9367-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-3150/2025] On apparent reading of the provision, it is clear that mandate of the rule is not fulfilled merely because a judgment is passed in a case where Vakalatnama was filed by the candidate. The requirement of the rule is that a candidate should have personally argued the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute and admits that six judgments which were submitted are not those, which were personally argued by the petitioner. He further submits that requirement of having personally argued is substantially complied with if the records of the case in which judgment/order has been passed, shows that Vakalatnama was filed including the name of the petitioner. We are unable to accept this submission. Mere submission of Vakalatnama in a case does not mean that the case was argued by the candidate. Unless the order mentions the name of the counsel as the arguing counsel, it cannot be accepted that the case was personally argued by the candidate. Therefore, the contention in this regard is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. The second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner also does not merit acceptance and is liable to be rejected at the threshold because it is trite law that negative equality cannot be enforced. If the petitioner has failed to fulfill the legal requirement of Rule 36, she cannot be allowed to participate in the process of selection on the allegation that this mistake has been allegedly committed in case of another candidate. That candidate is not even a party in this petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:9367-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-3150/2025] Before parting with the case, we direct that a copy of this order to be sent to the Registrar Examination, Jodhpur for verifying the allegations insofar as Heena Mohal Lal is concerned that even though, she had not personally argued, failing to fulfill the requirement of Rule 36 ibid, she has been allowed to participate in the process of selection. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ INDER/PAYAL/259