[2026:RJ-JP:22258] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4310/2026 1. Vikas Choudhary S/o. Ratiram Choudhary, Aged About 27 Years, R/o. Vpo Mahapura, Teh. Choth Ka Barwara Dist. Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan. -322704. 2. Vedpal Saini S/o Phool Chand Saini, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Alwar Road By Pass, Naya Kuwa Bansur, District Alwar, Rajasthan-301402 3. Surbhi Gupta D/o Prahlad Ray Gupta, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Sita Ram Mandir Ke Pass Anand Nagar Colony Khairthal, District Alwar, Rajasthan-301404 4. Dharmendra Kumawat S/o Subhash Chandra Kumawat, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ward No. 17 Near Water Tank Mukundgarh Distt. Jhunjhunu State (Raj.) 333705 5. Vinod Dayma S/o. Meethalal Dayma, Aged About 40 Years, R/o. Main Market Kushalpura, District Beawar, Rajasthan-306305 6. Dharmishta Shukla D/o. Gajendra Shukla, Aged About 39 Years, R/o. Satora Mohalla, Purneshwar Mandir Ke Pass Partapur Garhi, 327024. 7. Suman D/o. Dara Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o. Ward No. 5, Sangthiya Lalanta, Dist.- Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. -335523. 8. Rakesh S/o Rangu, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vill. Vanelapada, Post Bagidora, District Banswarra, Rajasthan-327601 9. Sita Choudhary D/o Harji Ram Choudhary, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Tharola Ki Dhani Renewal Manji, Teh. Phagi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan-303904 10. Ajay Guda S/o Vijaypal Guda, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo. Gada Patta Peeth, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan- 314403 11. Krishna Gupta D/o. Santosh Kumar Gupta, Aged About 32 Years, R/o.ward No. 25, Bhagirath Ki Bagichi, Nahar Road, Dist.- Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan. -22201. 12. Bhanu Pratap Singh Hamerdekha S/o. Gopal Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o. Pl. No. 34, Radhe Vihar, Ward No. 32, Chaksu, Dist.-Jaipur, Rajasthan. -303901. [2026:RJ-JP:22258] (2 of 4) [CW-4310/2026] 13. Subhash Chander S/o Sadhu Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ward No. 03, Vill. 5 D Badi, Dullapur Keri, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan-335901 14. Deepak Kumar Gouttam S/o Ramji Lal Gouttam, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vpo. Peepalwara, Teh. Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan-322023 15. Abdul Nazil S/o Abdul Kuddus, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Imam Chok Sangod, District Kota, Rajasthan-325601 ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Janpath, Jaipur 2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Secretary, Rajya Krishi Prabandh Sansthan Parisar, Durgapura, Jaipur-302018 3. The Director, Elementary Education Rajasthan, Lalgarh Palace, Near Unnamed Road, Samta Nagar, Bikaner 334001. 4. Sunil Kumar S/o Balveer, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward No.3, Vpo 16 Ag Bhompura, Rawatsar Hanumangarh, Districrt Hanumangarh, Rajasthan-335524. 5. Narendra Singh S/o Richhpal Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Golsar, Post Chau, Tehsil Nagaur, District Nagaur, Rajasthan-341001. 6. Parameshwar S/o Subhash Chand, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No.4, Village Singrasar, Post Mokalsar Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan-335804. 7. Suman Bhatt D/o Harish Chandra Bhatt, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Khadagada, Teh. Sagawara, District Dungarpur, State Rajasthan - 314024 8. Ravina D/o Mahender Gorchhiya, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ward No.4, Vpo Dhannasar, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan-335524. 9. Mangal Singh Rana S/o Teja Rana, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Salon Tandi Badi Post Tandi Badi, District- Banswara, State - Rajasthan - 327602 10. Vinod Kumar S/o Dinesh Kumar, Aged About 40 Years, [2026:RJ-JP:22258] (3 of 4) [CW-4310/2026] R/o Ward No. 06 7 Dol-B Teh. Rawla Dist. Sri Ganganagar, Raj. 335707 11. Shalu Jaimini D/o Dinesh Jaimini, Aged About 26 Years, Village Post Kasba Shahar, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli, Rajasthan-322204. 12. Mohammed Vaseem S/o Mohammed Naeem, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vill Bahter, Post Bahter, Teh. Malarna Dungar, District Sawaimadhopur, State - Rajasthan - 322028. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Sharma for Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Bhardwaj for Mr. Nalin G. Narain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 26/05/2026 1. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties jointly submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated 11.05.2026 passed by this Court in the case of Yasmeen Bee D/o Nijamuddin & ors. Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. & Ors. connected matters in S.B. CWP No. 13045/2025, wherein following directions were given: "17. Consequently, while allowing these writ petitions, it is directed that the respondents shall determine correct number of vacancies on the basis of guidelines given by the Division Bench of this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Namonarayan Sharma & Others (supra) and after assessing the correct number of vacancies, the respondents shall reexamine the claims of the petitioners afresh and, in case the petitioners are otherwise eligible in terms of the advertisement and are found to have secured higher marks, on the basis of revised results, than the last appointed candidate in their respective category, the respondents shall offer appointment to the [2026:RJ-JP:22258] (4 of 4) [CW-4310/2026] petitioners, subject to availability of the vacancies, after redetermining their existence in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the case of Namonarayan Sharma & Others (supra) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The petitioners shall also be entitled to notional benefits of pay fixation and seniority qua candidates appointed earlier despite securing lesser marks, however, without any entitlement to actual monetary arrears for the past period. Simultaneously, it is directed that no candidate already appointed pursuant to the original answer key shall be terminated solely on account of subsequent revision of the answer key, since they were not at fault. 18. However, the benefit of this judgment shall remain confined only to the petitioners before this Court and to those candidates, who had already approached this Court and whose writ petitions are pending consideration. Any fence-sitter who remained indolent and failed to agitate his rights within reasonable time shall not be entitled to claim benefit on the basis of the present judgment." 2. In view of above consensus arrived at between learned counsel for the parties, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of this writ petition in the same terms and with the same directions as given in the case of Yasmeen Bee D/o Nijamuddin & Ors. (supra). 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /15