[2026:RJ-JP:28742] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10457/2025 CNR: RJHC020586992025 | URN: CW / 23605U / 2025 Suman Gupta D/o Shri Shyam Lal Gupta, Aged About 34 Years, Presently Working As Evaluation Officer In The Office Of Evaluation Department, Department Of Planning, Yojna Bhawan, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Represented Through Principal Secre- tary, Department Of Planning, Secretariat, Tilak Marg, Jaipur-302003 2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secre- tary, Jaipur Road, Ghughraghati, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R N Mathur, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Utkarsh Dubey For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG assisted by Mr. Manish Parihar, Mr. Abhishek Sharma & Ms. Pooja Sharma Mr. Manish Parihar for applicant – Mr. Anand Jangid HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 1. Date of conclusion of arguments : 24.07.2026 2. Date on which judgment was reserved : 24.07.2026 3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced: : Full Judgment 4. Date of pronouncement : 10.08.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure-1) whereby the appointment of the petitioner on the post of ‘Evaluation Officer’ made vide order dated 07.11.2022, stood cancelled. [2026:RJ-JP:28742] (2 of 8) [CW-10457/2025] 2. The facts are that the petitioner applied for the post of ‘Evaluation Officer’ in pursuance to Advertisement dated 21.01.2020 (Annexure-R/2). Alongwith the application form, the petitioner submitted Experience Certificate dated 14.06.2021 whereby it was certified that the petitioner who was working as an ‘Investigator’ with the Department, worked on the post of ‘Research Assistant’ too for the period from 30.06.2017 to 01.08.2018. On the strength of the said Experience Certificate, the candidature of the petitioner was taken into consideration and she was declared selected. Vide order dated 29.12.2021, the petitioner was accorded appointment. 3. However, a complaint was filed by one Mr. Anand Jangid to the effect that the petitioner did not have experience of one year on the post of ‘Research Assistant’ and the Experience Certificate had wrongly been issued in her favour. She not being eligible, could not have been appointed and her appointment deserves to be cancelled. 4. An independent Enquiry Committee of Director level Officers was constituted to enquire into the matter and vide report dated 12.03.2025, the Committee held that the petitioner did not possess one year experience as requisite and her additional charge on the post of ‘Research Assistant’ was merely for 35 days. It was further clarified that the Experience Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was not in conformity with the eligibility criteria as prescribed in Advertisement dated 21.01.2020. 5. Acting upon the Enquiry Report, the appointment of the petitioner stood cancelled vide the impugned order. [2026:RJ-JP:28742] (3 of 8) [CW-10457/2025] 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the requisite qualification, a candidate was required to have one year work experience of handling important statistical records, conducting socio-economic sample surveys, designing of schedules supervising the field work, and drafting memoranda & reports. While relying upon Office Order dated 30.06.2017 (Annexure-5), he submitted that vide the said order the petitioner was given the additional charge of ‘Research Assistant’ on the superannuation of the person working on the said post. The said additional charge continued till the Year 2018 and during the said period, the petitioner was given the additional charge of ‘Investigator’ too vide Office Order dated 20.02.2018. There is nothing available on record to suggest that the additional charge as given to the petitioner was ever withdrawn or that any other person was posted as ‘Research Assistant’ during the period she was holding the additional charge. In that event, the petitioner effectively performed all the duties of a ‘Research Assistant’ during the complete period from 30.06.2017 to 01.08.2018 and Experience Certificate dated 14.06.2021 (Annexure-2) was rightly issued in her favour. 7. Counsel submits that the petitioner’s appointment on basis of the said Experience Certificate was hence, in consonance with the conditions of the Advertisement. The same therefore does not deserve any interference and the order impugned deserves to be quashed. 8. Per contra learned AAG appearing for the respondent State, at the very inception, submitted that the present writ petition has [2026:RJ-JP:28742] (4 of 8) [CW-10457/2025] rendered infructuous as subsequent to the filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner, on her own accord, filed application dated 06.11.2025 before the respondent Authorities with a prayer that she be permitted to continue on the post of ‘Research Assistant’ on which she was working prior to interim order dated 21.07.2025 been passed in the present writ petition. Acting upon the application of the petitioner, vide order dated 09.06.2026, the services of the petitioner have been regularized on the post of ‘Research Assistant’ w.e.f. 01.07.2025 i.e., the date of impugned order whereby her appointment on the post of ‘Evaluation Officer’ stood cancelled. In pursuance to order dated 09.06.2026, the petitioner has even joined. Meaning thereby, the petitioner has accepted order dated 09.06.2026. In that event, the petitioner cannot pursue the present writ petition, as one cannot ride on two horses at the same time. Once having accepted her regularization on the post of ‘Research Assistant’, she cannot keep her claim for the post of ‘Evaluation Officer’ alive. 9. On merit, Counsel for the respondent State submitted that the specific condition of the Advertisement was one year experience on the post of ‘Statistical/Research Assistant’ or an equivalent post and not simplicitor similar work experience. Herein, the petitioner was working as a ‘Compiler’ at the relevant point of time and hence, could not have been termed to be working on an equivalent post. 10. Counsel submitted that the post of ‘Research Assistant’ is two cadre higher to ‘Compiler’ and mere performance of the duties of a ‘Research Assistant’ on an additional charge for a short [2026:RJ-JP:28742] (5 of 8) [CW-10457/2025] period cannot entitle the petitioner to claim the benefits of the same. Further, as was the specific finding of the Enquiry Committee, the said additional charge was also held by the petitioner only for a period of 35 days. By all means, the same could not have been termed to be in consonance with the condition of the Advertisement. 11. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record. 12. Before proceeding on to the adjudication of the issue involved, a consideration of the requisite qualification as per the advertisement would be essential. As per the Advertisement, following educational qualifications/experience were requisite: “(i)(a) Second Class Post-graduate degree in Economics/Sociology/Mathematics/Commerce/ Public Administration from an Indian or foreign University. Candidates with a Post-graduate degree in Mathematics or Statistics or Public Administration should have had Economics or Sociology as one of the subjects in degree course. (b) A certificate (RS-CIT course conducted by Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Limited) awarded by Vardhaman Mahaveer Open University, Kota or any other certificate awarded by a competent authority declared equivalent to above certificate by Department of Information, Technology and Communication in Government of Rajasthan. (c) One year experience of handling important statistical records on the post of Statistical/ Research Assistant or on an equivalent post in a Government Department or University or Research Organisation and one [2026:RJ-JP:28742] (6 of 8) [CW-10457/2025] year’s experience of conducting socio-economic sample surveys, designing of schedules supervising the field work and drafting memoranda and reports. (ii) Working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri Script and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture.” 13. Proceeding on to the facts, the admitted facts on record are that the petitioner was appointed with the respondent Department on the post of ‘Compiler’ vide order dated 08.02.2017. The Advertisement in question for the post of ‘Evaluation Officer’ was issued on 21.01.2020. Meaning thereby, when the petitioner applied in pursuance to the Advertisement, she was continuing/working as a ‘Compiler’. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted as ‘Investigator’ vide order dated 30.12.2020 i.e., after the issuance of the Advertisement in question. The cut-off date for the eligibility criteria as per the Advertisement was admittedly 17.02.2020, which was the last date stipulated for submission of the application form. That is to say, the petitioner was required to possess the requisite qualifications on 17.02.2020. 14. It is also an admitted fact that the promotional post of ‘Compiler’ is ‘Investigator’ and that of ‘Investigator’ is ‘Research Assistant’. Further, the promotional post of ‘Research Assistant’ is ‘Evaluation Officer’ i.e. the post in question. Meaning thereby, the post of Evaluation Officer is two grades higher to that of a Compiler. 15. As is the basic principle of service law, work experience requisite for a post is always on a post just one cadre lower/below. [2026:RJ-JP:28742] (7 of 8) [CW-10457/2025] As in the present case, the requisite work experience for the post of ‘Evaluation Officer’ was on the post of ‘Research Assistant’. Admittedly, on 17.02.2020, the petitioner was working as a ‘Compiler’ and was promoted as an ‘Investigator’ on 30.12.2020 and further as a ‘Research Assistant’ vide order dated 19.07.2022, which clearly was subsequent to 17.02.2020 (the last date of application form). 16. A bare perusal of Clause (i)(c) of the Advertisement as reproduced hereinabove, reflects that the requisite work experience was one year of handling important statistical records on the post of Statistical/Research Assistant or an equivalent post. That is to say, a candidate having been posted as a Statistical/Research Assistant or on an equivalent post, was a mandatory qualification. 17. So far as the experience of conducting surveys, designing of schedules, drafts of memoranda and reports is concerned, the same was prescribed to be an additional qualification and not the sole requisite qualification. Even if the work experience of the petitioner while holding the additional charge is taken into consideration, the same can be termed to be in consonance with the additional qualification and not the primary requisite qualification. The petitioner having not been appointed or promoted ever as a ‘Research Assistant’, could definitely not have been termed to be holding requisite qualification in terms of the Advertisement. The condition specifically stipulated the work experience to be on the post of ‘Research Assistant’ and not any similar work experience while holding some other post. [2026:RJ-JP:28742] (8 of 8) [CW-10457/2025] 18. In the specific opinion of this Court, the appointment of the petitioner has rightly been cancelled while holding that she was not possessing the requisite qualification in terms of the Advertisement. 19. As this Court has reached to the above conclusion, it is not required to further deal with the alleged period of work experience of the petitioner while holding the charge of a ‘Research Assistant’, the same being irrelevant. 20. In view of above overall analysis, no case for interference in order impugned dated 01.07.2025 is made out and the present writ petition is hence, dismissed. 21. So far as the regularization of the services of the petitioner on the post of ‘Research Assistant’ vide order dated 09.06.2026 w.e.f. 01.07.2025 is concerned, the same would remain unaffected by the present order and the petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential reliefs arising out of the said order. 22. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (REKHA BORANA),J 135/ANIL MAKWANA/78