[2026:RJ-JP:25813-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 85/2023 URN: SAW / 172U / 2023 Chairman, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, State Institute Agricultural Management Premises, Shreeji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus 1. Dulhe Ram Meena S/o Shri Bhorya Ram Meena, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Village Near To Bus Stand, Suroth, Tehsil Hindaun City, District Karauli (Rajasthan) 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Director, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pooja Sharma for Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG Mr. Y.S. Jadoun HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order (Oral) 09/07/2026 Per: Arun Monga, J. 1. The instant intra court appeal is directed against an order dated 13.12.2022 passed by Learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.1012/2021, by which the petition filed by the respondent no.1, was allowed, directing that Respondent No. 1 be given appointment as Physical Training Instructor Grade III, with consequential placement in the merit list above his junior. [2026:RJ-JP:25813-DB] (2of 5) [SAW-85/2023] 2. Succinct factual background first, as narrated in the appeal, is as follows. The appellant (be read as Rajasthan Staff Selection Board ) issued a combined advertisement dated 04.05.2018 inviting applications for the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade III. A total of 4,500 vacancies were advertised — 3,930 for the non-scheduled area and 570 for the scheduled area. By a subsequent notification dated 16.07.2019, 155 additional posts were added for the Most Backward Class category. 2.1. Respondent No. 1, being eligible, applied on 21.06.2018 and secured 69.6045 marks in the selection process. A provisional result was declared on 29.01.2019, shortlisting candidates up to 1.5 times the advertised vacancies. Upon revision of the notified vacancies, the provisional result was revised on 10.05.2019. 2.2. In the revised selection, Respondent No. 1 did not find place in the select list, as the notified cut-off marks were higher than the marks secured by him. However, after the addition of 155 vacancies, the appellant published the final result on 26.09.2019, followed by lists dated 25.10.2019 and 14.11.2019 calling selected candidates for document verification. Significantly, the roll number of Respondent No. 1 was included in the order dated 18.11.2019, though that order did not specify the applicable cut-off marks. 2.3. The case of Respondent No. 1 is that he could not appear for document verification because he was residing in a remote area with limited internet connectivity and remained unaware of the schedule; no separate communication regarding document verification was ever sent to him. Waiting lists were thereafter issued on 30.04.2020 and 21.08.2020. By order dated 27.11.2020, further candidates were called for document verification, and, for the first time, the category-wise cut- off marks were indicated. [2026:RJ-JP:25813-DB] (3of 5) [SAW-85/2023] 2.4. It is in this backdrop that Respondent No. 1 instituted the writ petition. 2.5. The appellant contested the writ petition by filing a reply and an additional affidavit, contending that candidates of the Scheduled Tribe category were afforded three opportunities for eligibility and document verification on different dates in November and December 2019, but Respondent No. 1 remained absent on each occasion. 2.6. By judgment dated 13.12.2022, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to appoint Respondent No. 1, with consequential placement in the merit list above his junior. 2.7 Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred. 3. We have heard arguments and perused the case file. 4. The order sheets reveal a consistent pattern of non-appearance on behalf of the appellant. None appeared on 08.12.2025. No adverse order was passed and, in the interest of justice, the matter was adjourned. On a few subsequent dates, the matter did not reach for hearing, and hence no inference can be drawn regarding the appellant's appearance on those dates. However, when the matter was taken up on the board of the Court on 06.04.2026, the same position recurred viz. none appeared for the appellant. Even then, taking a lenient view, the matter was adjourned. 5. Today, on resumed the hearing, the position remains unchanged i.e. there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. 6. Apart from the appellant's persistent absence, there is a more fundamental infirmity in the appeal i.e. the locus of the appellant itself. The appeal has been filed by the Chairman, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur. The Board is merely a recruiting agency. Its function is confined to conducting the selection on behalf of the [2026:RJ-JP:25813-DB] (4of 5) [SAW-85/2023] Department/employer and recommending candidates. It is not the employer. It therefore has no vested interest in the matter of employment beyond the limited scope of the selection process it conducts as an outsourced agency and makes recommendations qua the same. 7. Intriguingly, what makes the appellant's position even more untenable is the conduct or rather lack of any stand of the Department itself being the actual employer. The Department has neither preferred any appeal nor raised any objection to the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 8. On the contrary, the Department is arrayed before us as respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and upon a query from the Court, learned Counsel representing said respondents/department, candidly states that the Department has no objection if the judgment of the learned Single Judge is upheld. 9. In the peculiar premise, when the employer itself accepts the judgment, the recruiting agency, being a mere conduit in the process, can hardly be permitted to keep the litigation alive. 10. As an upshot, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment, on both counts: first, the locus of the appellant is itself suspect; and second, the appellant has, in any event, chosen not to appear and prosecute the appeal despite repeated indulgence. 11. In the totality of the circumstances, the appeal stands dismissed. 12. In the parting, the official respondents are directed to take expeditious steps to implement the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which remained stayed during the pendency of this appeal, in any event not later than two months from today. For the period Respondent No. 1 remained out of service, he shall not be entitled to [2026:RJ-JP:25813-DB] (5of 5) [SAW-85/2023] salary, on the principle of "No Work, No Pay". He shall, however, be entitled to all other service benefits, including seniority, at par with his counterparts appointed in the same selection process. 13. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (ARUN MONGA),J DEEPA/36