In a significant ruling on service law compliance, the Rajasthan High Court has quashed a discriminatory appointment advertisement and directed the State Government to issue appointment orders to four petitioners within three weeks. The judgment reinforces that State authorities must strictly adhere to prescribed legal procedures in selection processes, failing which their actions may be struck down as arbitrary.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners - Avdhesh Kumar Sharma, Rambabu Sharma, Rakesh Kumar Gattani, and Ram Chandra Singh Kharwad - challenged an advertisement dated 16.12.2025 issued by the Social Audit, Accountability and Transparency Society (SSAAT), a body under the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department of the State of Rajasthan. The advertisement pertained to appointments in certain districts, which the petitioners alleged were arbitrary and discriminatory, violating procedural norms.
Key Facts
- The petitioners belong to different districts: Baran, Sirohi, Bharatpur, and Salumbar
- The impugned advertisement (Annexure-7) was issued on 16.12.2025 for district-wise appointments
- The petitioners claimed the selection process was arbitrary and non-compliant with legal procedures
- The State Government failed to justify the exclusion of the petitioners' districts from the appointment process
Procedural History
- 2025: Petitioners filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20396/2025 before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
- 30.06.2026: The High Court decided Mohammad Shakir vs State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4847/2026), holding that the State's selection process was arbitrary and directing issuance of appointment orders within three weeks
- 13.07.2026: The present writ petition was heard and allowed by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Rekha Borana, relying on the precedent set in Mohammad Shakir
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the advertisement dated 16.12.2025 to the extent it excluded their districts (Baran, Sirohi, Dholpur, and Pratapgarh)
- Issuance of appointment orders in their favour within a stipulated timeframe
- Compliance with legal procedures in the selection process
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the State Government's selection process, as reflected in the advertisement dated 16.12.2025, was arbitrary and discriminatory and thus liable to be quashed for non-compliance with prescribed legal procedures.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- Relied on the judgment in Mohammad Shakir vs State of Rajasthan, arguing that the State's failure to comply with legal procedures rendered the selection process arbitrary
- Contended that the advertisement (Annexure-7) was discriminatory as it excluded certain districts without justification
- Submitted that the State was duty-bound to follow the law in appointment processes and could not act arbitrarily
For the Respondents
- The respondents' counsel could not refute the petitioners' submissions, indicating a lack of legal justification for the impugned advertisement
The Court's Analysis
The Court relied heavily on its recent judgment in Mohammad Shakir vs State of Rajasthan, wherein it had observed:
"This Court, while reiterating the above position of law, is of the considered opinion that once the State Government took up the selection process in terms of law, it is duty bound to comply with the procedure as prescribed under law. The action of the State Government being arbitrary and discriminatory, does deserve interference by this Court."
The Court held that the State Government's action was arbitrary as it failed to comply with the procedure prescribed under law. The advertisement dated 16.12.2025 was quashed to the extent it excluded the petitioners' districts, and the respondents were directed to issue appointment orders within three weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The Court:
- Quashed and set aside the advertisement dated 16.12.2025 (Annexure-7) to the extent of the districts Baran, Sirohi, Dholpur, and Pratapgarh
- Directed the respondents to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioners within three weeks from the date of receipt of the order
- Disposed of the stay application and any pending applications
What This Means For Similar Cases
State Cannot Act Arbitrarily in Selection Processes
- The judgment reinforces that State authorities must strictly adhere to legal procedures in selection and appointment processes
- Arbitrary or discriminatory actions will be struck down by courts, even if the State attempts to justify them post facto
- Practitioners should challenge non-compliant advertisements or notifications by relying on this precedent
Compliance Deadlines Are Mandatory
- The Court's direction to issue appointment orders within three weeks sets a strict compliance timeline
- Failure to comply with such directions may invite contempt proceedings or further judicial intervention
- Documentary evidence of procedural lapses (e.g., advertisements, notifications) will be critical in establishing arbitrariness
Precedent-Based Arguments Strengthen Writ Petitions
- The petitioners successfully relied on a recent judgment (Mohammad Shakir) to argue their case, demonstrating the persuasive value of precedents
- Practitioners should identify and cite relevant judgments where courts have struck down similar arbitrary actions
- High Court judgments carry significant weight in service law matters, especially when the State fails to justify its actions
