[2026:RJ-JP:392-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9908/2022 Rajendra Singh Samota S/o Shri Roopa Ram Choudhary, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Plot No. 8, Shiv Colony, Sector No. 8, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Registrar General 2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9370/2022 Tej Singh Dhabhai S/o Late Sundar Lal Dhabhai, Aged About 41 Years, R/o H.no. 2, Opp Godawari Dham, Rawatbhata Road, Kota, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Registrar General, High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan, Jodhpur. 2. Registrar Examination, High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan, Jodhpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Mr.Ashish Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 07/01/2026 1. At the first round, no one has put in appearance on behalf of petitioners and the matter was passed over. Even in the second round, no one has put in appearance on their behalf. [2026:RJ-JP:392-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-9908/2022] 2. These two writ petitions are being decided by the common order, as the facts and issues involved are similar. For convenience, the facts are being taken from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9908/2022. 3. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- (i) by an appropriate writ order or direction the impugned notice dated 04.06.2022 issued by the respondents to the extent of candidature of petitioner has been rejected, may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) by an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of petitioner in OBC (NCL) category by considering his OBC certificates either dated 1.1.2019 or 27.10.2021 and allow the petitioner to participate in the main exam scheduled to be held on 23.07.2022 & 24.07.2022 and if the petitioner found place in merit he may be given appointment to the post of Cadre of District Judge under OBC Category with all consequential benefit. (iii) Any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 4. The issue involved in the present writ petition relates to Notification No. RHC/Exam Cell/RJS/DJC/2021/05 dated 05.01.2021 by which applications were invited for competitive examination for direct recruitment to the cadre of District Judge, 2020. 5. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.07.2022 has dismissed the stay application filed on behalf of [2026:RJ-JP:392-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-9908/2022] the petitioners considering the issue involved in the present writ petition, which reads as under:- “Heard on prayer for interim relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though certificate of OBC (NCL) was issued in petitioner’s favour after the cut off date, the status of OBC(NCL) is granted on the basis of economic status prior to the date of issuance of certificate. The certificate issued in favour of the petitioner after the cut off date and submitted before the authority would relate back to the period prior to cut off date of submission of application form, i.e., 31.03.2021 and, therefore, the petitioner is required to be treated as eligible. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that a certificate of OBC (NCL) takes effect for a period of one year from the date of issuance of certificate and it is not a certificate, which could be used to claim status of OBC(NCL) in respect of the period prior to issuance of certificate in view of the Government’s circulars which provide that such certificate only certifies OBC(NCL) status for a period of one year from the date of issuance of certificate and not prior to that. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, no case is made out for grant of any interim relief to the petitioner. Stay Application No. 9758/2022 is rejected. Writ petition be listed for hearing after three weeks.” 6. In our considered view, the process of examination as informed by learned counsel for the respondents has already been completed and [2026:RJ-JP:392-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-9908/2022] thereafter in the subsequent year, one more recruitment process has been initiated by the respondents. 7. In our considered view, no cause of action survives for pursuing these writ petitions and with the efflux of time, petitions have been rendered infructuous. 8. Accordingly the writ petitions are dismissed as rendered infructuous. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Monika/30-31