[2025:RJ-JP:10172-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3225/2025 Priti Mathur D/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Mathur, Aged About 46 Years, R/o W/o Jitendra Kumar Bhatnagar, Out Of Mori, Badanpura Chomu, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 303702 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Registrar (Examination), Jodhpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamal Kumar Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K Sharma with Mr. Vishnu Kant Sharma & 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 the rejection of her candidature on the ground that even though the petitioner had submitted two additional judgments after issuance of application dated 14.01.2025 within the stipulated period i.e. on or before 24.01.2025, her candidature has been illegally rejected. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner does not dispute the result of scrutiny and verification of judgments and copies of judgments have already been submitted and notified vide notification dated 14.01.2025 that two out of ten judgments did not conform to the mandate of Rule 36 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (for short ‘the Rules of 2010’). [2025:RJ-JP:10172-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-3225/2025] 3. The petitioner case rests on the submission that later on the petitioner had submitted two judgments. We have perused those two judgments. Both the judgments are passed by the Court in the year 2025. 3.1 In the case of Sandeep Nagora Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Anr.- D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3315/2025 decided on 06.03.2025, we have taken a view that the Rule 36 of the Rules of 2010 requires submission of ten judgments of the preceding seven years, which means that the judgment relied upon should have been passed on or before the last date of submission of application form i.e. on or before 09.08.2024. 4. Apparently copies of two judgments submitted later on, do not conform to the aforesaid legal requirement. Therefore, no case is made out. 5. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ N.Gandhi/Tanisha/225