[2026:RJ-JP:4290-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1491/2025 1. Omendra Singh Rathore S/o Shri Man Singh Rathore, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Royal Colony, Amet, Rajsamand, Rajasthan. 2. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Lal Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o V/p Bagra, Tehsil And District Jalore, Rajasthan. 3. Kamal Kishore Sharma S/o Shri Sanwar Mal Sharma, Aged About 37 Years, R/o V/o Mei, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan. 4. Arun Kumar S/o Shri Ganpat Ray, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Ward No. 05, Sadul Shahar, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. 5. Bheru Lal Balai S/o Shri Magana Balai, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Khatano Ka Kheda, Singawal, Bhinai, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Appellants Versus 1. The Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Sunita Tailor D/o Bihari Lal Tailor, Aged About 39 Years, R/ o 165, Arya Nagar, Near N.k. Public School, Murlipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 5. Komal Lawaniya D/o Madan Lal Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Khuuri, Post Daulatgarh, Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Himanshu Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Bhardwaj, Adv. for Mr. Nalin G. Narain, Adv. Mr. Aamir Khan, Adv. [2026:RJ-JP:4290-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-1491/2025] HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 30/01/2026 1. Learned counsel for both the parties jointly submit that the controversy involved herein is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Kiran Jain Vs. The Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1377/2025), decided on 06.12.2025; the order dated 06.12.2025 reads as under :- "1. Misc. application No.1/2025 has been filed for seeking leaveto appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. 3. Another misc. application No.2/2025 has been filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for bringing additional documents on record. 4. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. 5. Another misc. application (CMCW No.1066/2025) has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the special appeal. 6. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 7. Both the appellants are aggrieved by the order dated28.11.2023 passed by learned Single Judge, wherein in paragraph11 of the judgment, it has been held has under: It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the RSSB has already made recommendation to the State Government for giving appointment tothe selected candidates on the post of Teacher Grade- III Level-II in various subjects. The respondent- State shall make a mention in the appointment [2026:RJ-JP:4290-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-1491/2025] orders to be issued about the order of re- examination of the answer key and in case the result is revised and any person who has also been given appointment prior to the revision of the result, does not find place in the revised merit list, the appointment given to him before revised result will not create any right inhis favour to continue. 8. Grievance of the appellants is that certain observations have been made against the appellants in paragraph 11 of the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereas none of the appellants was party to the writ petition. Counsels further submit that all the appellants have already been appointed and joined the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II in various subjects in pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.12.2022.Counsel further submits that if the respondents want to revise the result in compliance with any order of this Court or any order of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur, their services may not be terminated. 9. Counsels relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Girjesh Shrivastava and Ors.Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. reported in 2010 (6) ALLMR (SC)930, wherein in paragraph 28, it has been held as under: 28. More importantly, in deciding these issues, the High Court should have been mindful of the fact that an order for cancellation of appointment would render most of the appellants unemployed. Most of them were earlier teaching in non-formal education centres, from where they had resigned to apply in response to the advertisement. They had left their previous employment in view of the fact that for their three-year long teaching experiences, the interview process in the present selection was awarding them grace marks of 25%. It had also given them a relaxation of 8 years with respect to their age. Now, if they lose their jobs as a result of the High Court's order, they would be effectively unemployed as they cannot even revert to their [2026:RJ-JP:4290-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-1491/2025] earlier jobs in the non-formal education centres, which have been abolished since then. This would severely affect the economic security of many families. Most of them are between the age group of 35-45 years, and the prospects for them of finding another job are rather dim. Some of them were in fact awaiting their salary raise at the time of quashing of their appointment by the High Court.” 10. Counsels relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anmol Kumar Tiwari and Ors. versus The State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in AIR 2021SC 1139, wherein in paragraph 09, it has been held as under: 9.Two issues arise for our consideration. The first relates to the correctness of the direction given by the High Court to reinstate the Writ Petitioners. The High Court directed reinstatement of the Writ Petitioners after taking into account the fact that theywere beneficiaries of the select list thatwas prepared in an irregular manner. However, the High Court found that the Writ Petitioners were not responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities in preparation of the select list. Moreover, the Writ Petitioners were appointed after completion of training and worked for some time. The High Courtwas of the opinion that the Writ Petitioners ought to be considered for reinstatement without affecting the rightsof other candidates who were alreadyselected. A similar situation arose in VikasPratap Singh’s case (supra), where thisCourt considered that the Appellants-therein were appointed due to an error committed by the Respondents in the matter of valuation of answer scripts. As there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation committed by the Appellants therein, the termination of their services was set aside as it would adversely affect their careers. That the Appellants-therein had successfully undergone training and were serving the State for more than 3 years was an other reason that was given by this Court for setting aside the orders passed by the [2026:RJ-JP:4290-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-1491/2025] High Court. As the Writ Petitioners are similarly situated to the Appellants in Vikas Pratap Singh’s case (supra), we arein agreement with the High Court that the Writ Petitioners are entitled to the relief granted. Moreover, though on pain of Contempt, the Writ Petitioners have been reinstated and are working at present. 11. Counsels for the respondents have not disputed the fact that the appellants were not impleaded as party before the learned Single Judge. 12. Heard counsels for the parties and perused the record. 13. Admittedly, the learned Single Judge has made certain observations with regard to appointment of the appellants in first round. 14. We are of the considered view that even if after revision of result respondents would appoint successful candidates, then also services of appellants cannot be terminated by the State because there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation committed by the appellants herein in connection with their appointment. 15. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and paragraph 11 of the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The respondents are further directed not to terminate services of the appellants herein, in view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Girjesh Shrivastava (supra) and Anmol Kumar Tiwari(supra). " 2. In light of the aforequoted order, the present special appeal is allowed in light of and with the same direction as given in Kiran Jain (supra). (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (Dr. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J Suheer/Heena/41