[2026:RJ-JP:26883] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No.204/2023 URN: WRW / 333U / 2023 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.26333/2018 Rajesh Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Chaturbhuj Sharma, Aged About 37 Years, R/o House No. 102, Sanjay Gandhinagar, Sector-A, Dcm Road, Near Railway Phatak, Kota Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur 2. Director Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan Jaipur 3. Additional Director (Admn), Medical And Health Services Rajasthan Jaipur 4. Principal, Medical College, Kota ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yashwant Singh for Mr. Archit Bohra, Addl. GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 15/07/2026 1. The instant review petition has been submitted for recalling of the order dated 14.02.2023, passed by this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.26333/2018 submitted by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid writ petition was rejected by this Court on a technical count that the petitioner has failed to show any instance of similar nature, [2026:RJ-JP:26883] (2 of 4) [WRW-204/2023] where any selected person was allowed to join the service after a lapse of two years. Learned counsel submits that on this count alone, the aforesaid writ petition was rejected by this Court vide order dated 14.02.2023. Learned counsel submits that a similar writ petition was pending before this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1750/2017 titled as Altaf Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. and the same has been allowed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.05.2024. Learned counsel submits reference of certain candidates, who have been granted appointment in the said case after a lapse of more than two years and accordingly the aforesaid writ petition was allowed by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.05.2024. Hence, the order impugned be recalled. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State- respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Altaf (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, the impugned order dated 14.02.2023, passed by this Court is not required to be recalled and the instant review petition submitted by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. When the arguments submitted by the petitioner were heard in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.26333/2018 the writ petition on 14.02.2023, it was observed by this Court as under:- “This fact is not in dispute that the process for selection on the post of Nurse Grade-II was initiated by the respondents by issuing Notification dated [2026:RJ-JP:26883] (3 of 4) [WRW-204/2023] 26.02.2013 and in pursuance of the same, the petitioner participated in the above selection process but his name was not there in the first select list issued by the State-respondents on 22.03.2015. It appears that the second select list was issued on 10.02.2016 and the selected candidates were supposed to join on the offered post within a stipulated time, but the petitioner has not joined the said post within the stipulated time. The case of the petitioner is that he was not aware about publication of the second selected list on website of the State-respondents. The case of the petitioner is that he got to know about the second selection list when he received a letter from the then the Chief Minister in the year 2018 and immediately thereafter, he approached the office of the State respondents. It is well settled proposition of law that the selected candidates are required to join the offered post within a stipulated time fixed by the authorities but here in this case the petitioner has failed to join the post offered to him within the stipulated time and he approached this Court after a lapse of two years and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.S. Balu (Supra) has categorically held that a person does not acquire a legal right to be appointed only because his name appeared in the select list. The State as an employer has a right to fill up all the posts or not to fill them up. Unless a discrimination is made in regard to the filling up of the vacancies or an arbitrariness is committed, the concerned candidate will have no legal right for obtaining a writ of or in the nature of mandamus but here in this case also no discrimination or arbitrariness has been caused as the petitioner failed to join the post within the stipulated period and he has failed to show any single instance of similar nature that any selected person was allowed to join after a lapse of two years. Apart from the above, fresh selection process was initiated by the State respondents by issuing a Notification dated 30.05.2018. It is well settled proposition of law that joining time cannot be extended after initiation of fresh selection process and here in this case no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this belated stage. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition filed by the petitioner being devoid of merit, the same is hereby dismissed. [2026:RJ-JP:26883] (4 of 4) [WRW-204/2023] Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed.” 6. When the matter was decided, not a single example was quoted before this Court to show that any person in a similar position was given appointment, under the particular circumstance of failing to join the service within the time stipulated. On this count alone, the aforesaid writ petition submitted by the petitioner was rejected. 7. If at any point of time, after passing of the aforesaid impugned order by this Court, any identical writ petition has been allowed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the judgment so passed subsequently cannot be applied in a matter which has been disposed of much prior to the decision of the subsequent writ petition. 8. In case the review petition submitted by the petitioner is allowed on the basis of the order dated 03.05.2024 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Altaf (supra), such practice would open a pandora’s box of endless litigation. 9. This Court finds no error apparent on the face of the record, which requires any interference of this Court to review the order impugned. Accordingly, the instant review petition stands dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J 56/Karan