[2026:RJ-JP:12301-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 740/2025 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17477/2012 Registrar, University Of Rajasthan, Jln Marg, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus 1. Prakash Swaroop S/o Shri Parmeshwar Swaroop, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of 18, Rana Pratap Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Government Secretariat, Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Himanshu Sharma along with Mr. Lokesh Kumar Gurjar & Ms. Anjali Narula. Ms. Pragya Sethia. For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.B.L. Sharma. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 24/03/2026 The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-University challenging the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1(writ petitioner) was allowed. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) appeared in the B.Sc. (Honours/Pass) B.Ed. Examination, 1985 and secured 1704 marks. Thereafter, he applied for revaluation, pursuant to which his marks were increased from 1704 to 1709. [2026:RJ-JP:12301-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-740/2025] Grievance of the respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) before the learned Single Judge was that despite having secured higher marks, he was placed at Serial No. 3 in the merit list, whereas he ought to have been declared first in the merit list. Admittedly, the writ petition was filed by the respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) in the year 2012 and the explanation furnished by him is that he came to know about this discrepancy only after receiving information under the Right to Information Act. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that result of the respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) was declared in the year 1985 and after a lapse of about 27 years, he filed an RTI application and on that basis, he approached this Court by filing the writ petition in the year 2012. The writ petition, having been filed after an inordinate delay, deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside, and the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) stands dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J MG/17