[2026:RJ-JP:7500-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1326/2025 Sarfaraj Khan S/o Shri Fakir Mohd., Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Mohalla Nagoriya, Dausa, Distt. Dausa. ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, To The Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, P.H.Q., Jaipur. 3. The Dy. Inspector General Of Police, Jaipur Range, P.H.Q., Jaipur. 4. The Superintendent Of Police, Dausa Distt. Dausa. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahmed For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 17/02/2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. Learned Single Judge while passing the judgment dated 21.08.2025 observed as under:- "1. The instant petition pertains to the recruitment process of the year 2003. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that by this date, the recruitment process is already over and relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted at this stage. Even the prayers made in the writ petition would reveal that there was dispute [2026:RJ-JP:7500-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-1326/2025] with regard to measurement of chest as per the physical requirement in the recruitment process. At this stage, after 22 years, the dispute with regard to measurement of chest cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition under Article 46 of the Constitution of India. 3. In view of above, looking to the facts of the case, nature of dispute and long time gap of 22 years after completion of process, it may not be just and proper to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed." 3. We find no reason to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. We are in complete agreement with the judgment dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Accordingly, no interference is called for. 5. The special appeal is dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Monika/Aman/57