Raj HC directs appointment of teacher grade – III aspirants who topped revised result

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that candidates who secured higher marks than already-appointed teachers after revision of an erroneous answer key cannot be denied appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-II, ruling that such denial would be wholly arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution where the candidates bore no fault for the recruiting agency’s faulty evaluation process.

Justice Anand Sharma, while allowing a batch of writ petitions arising out of the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board’s recruitment for 27,000 posts of Teacher Grade-III, Level-II, observed that the rights of more meritorious candidates cannot be permitted to be defeated on account of a faulty evaluation attributable solely to the recruiting agency, while simultaneously protecting candidates already appointed under the original answer key from termination.

The Court observed:

“Denial of appointment to such more meritorious candidates, despite there being no fault attributable to them would be wholly arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Rights of more meritorious candidates cannot be permitted to be defeated on account of a faulty evaluation process attributable solely to the recruiting agency.”

The petitioners had appeared in the recruitment process initiated by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (RSSB) pursuant to its advertisement dated 16.12.2022 for 27,000 posts of Teacher Grade-III, Level-II in different subjects. The provisional answer key was released in May 2023, and the final result was declared on 18.09.2023, but the petitioners did not find a place in their respective categories.

Several aggrieved candidates had earlier approached the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Raman Choudhary v. Chairman, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10309/2023 and connected matters), where a Co-ordinate Bench by order dated 05.10.2023 directed the constitution of an expert committee to examine the disputed questions. In pursuance of those directions, the RSSB issued a revised result on 27.01.2025 followed by a final result on 20.06.2025. The effect of the revision was that the petitioners and several other candidates secured marks higher than candidates already appointed pursuant to the original result, but were nonetheless deprived of the benefit of appointment.

Counsel for the petitioners — including Mr. Anand Sharma (on behalf of Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma), Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with Mr. Aamir Khan, Mr. Himanshu Jain with Ms. Apoorva Agarwal and Mr. Avinash Bhardwaj, and Ms. Palak (on behalf of Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya) — submitted that the petitioners, being more meritorious on the basis of the revised result, were entitled to appointment and could not be denied their legitimate and fundamental right merely because lesser-meritorious candidates had already been appointed pursuant to the original result. They placed reliance on the Co-ordinate Bench decision in Mukesh Kumar Tailor v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 750/2017, decided on 09.02.2017) and the Division Bench decision in Namonarayan Sharma & Others v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Special Writ No. 908/2017, decided on 08.01.2020).

Per contra, the Additional Advocate General Mr. S.S. Naruka, assisted by Additional Government Counsel Mr. Chinmay Saxena, opposed the petitions on the ground that the petitioners had no vested right to appointment merely because they did not secure marks above the cut-off in the revised result. The State submitted that the entire selection process had been concluded and the petitioners could not be permitted to displace already-appointed candidates by drawing a comparison between two separate selection phases based on different criteria and timelines. The AAG further pointed to the Division Bench judgment dated 19.08.2025 in Swati Bhatt & Others v. Director, Primary Education (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 612/2024), where appointments of candidates affected by the revised result had been protected, and submitted that any relief granted to the petitioners ought to similarly safeguard those already in service.

The Court placed reliance on the recent decision of the Supreme Court dated 28.01.2026 in State of Rajasthan & Others v. Namonarayan Sharma & Others (Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 13102-13109 of 2020), wherein the Apex Court reaffirmed the directions issued by the High Court in Mukesh Kumar Tailor (supra) and held that respondents and impleaders, if they fall between the candidate last appointed pursuant to the first selection list and below the last candidate of the revised selection list, deserve appointment on parity. The Supreme Court had directed that such appointees would be entitled to all consequential benefits notionally, with monetary benefit of salary extended only from the date of their joining, and that inter-se seniority be maintained in terms of the merit of the revised seniority list.

In light of those decisions, Justice Anand Sharma held that the petitioners, being meritorious, were entitled to appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-II. The Court further found that the vacancy position placed on record by the State pursuant to its order dated 07.04.2026 was not in conformity with the guidelines laid down by the Division Bench in Namonarayan Sharma (supra) as confirmed by the Supreme Court.

While allowing the writ petitions, the Court directed the respondents to determine the correct number of vacancies in accordance with those guidelines and to re-examine the petitioners’ claims afresh; in case the petitioners were otherwise eligible in terms of the advertisement and were found to have secured higher marks on the basis of the revised result than the last appointed candidate in their respective category, appointments were to be offered within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment, subject to availability of vacancies after redetermination. The petitioners were held entitled to notional benefits of pay fixation and seniority qua candidates appointed earlier despite securing lesser marks, but without any entitlement to actual monetary arrears for the past period. The Court simultaneously directed that no candidate already appointed pursuant to the original answer key shall be terminated solely on account of the subsequent revision, since they were not at fault.

The benefit of the judgment was confined to the petitioners before the Court and to those candidates whose writ petitions were already pending consideration. Justice Anand Sharma clarified that 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.”

Before parting with the matter, the Court took serious note of recurring instances of faulty answer keys in public recruitment examinations and observed:

“The degree of caution, fairness, accuracy and vigilance required while framing the question paper and preparing the answer key is extremely high. Recruiting agencies, being instrumentalities of the State, cannot be permitted to deal with such examinations in a casual or negligent manner. They are under a constitutional obligation to ensure that question papers and answer keys are prepared with utmost precision by duly consulting authentic and standard reference books through competent subject experts, so as to eliminate the possibility of any ambiguity or error therein.”

Accordingly, the Court directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, to constitute a High Level Committee of Senior IAS Officers under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Department of Personnel, to examine the issue in depth and formulate a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and other corrective institutional measures to ensure transparency, accountability and accuracy in future recruitment examinations. The Committee was further tasked with examining the feasibility of initiating disciplinary proceedings against erring officials and experts responsible for preparation of defective question papers or faulty answer keys due to negligence or casual approach. A compliance report was directed to be placed before the Court within a period of three months.

The S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 92/2026, filed alleging deliberate and willful disobedience of an interim order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11710/2025, was disposed of as the interim order stood merged into the present judgment.

Title: Yasmeen Bee & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (lead case)

Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13045/2025 and connected matters; S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 92/2026

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:19914]

Counsel for petitioners: Mr. Anand Sharma (on behalf of Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma); Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with Mr. Aamir Khan; Mr. Himanshu Jain with Ms. Apoorva Agarwal and Mr. Avinash Bhardwaj; Ms. Palak (on behalf of Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya)

Counsel for respondents: Mr. S.S. Naruka, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Chinmay Saxena, Additional Government Counsel, Ms. Ritika Naruka, Mr. Tanishq Aditya Parmar, Mr. Anshuman Singh; Mr. Manish Bhardwaj and Mr. Devrajan Singh Shekhawat (on behalf of Mr. Nalin G. Narain); Mr. Narendra Singh Choudhary and Mr. Nikhil Pal Singh for Rajasthan Staff Selection Board; Mr. Mohit Chaudhary with Mr. Sourabh Sheoran; Mr. Raghunandan Sharma with Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Mr. Ayush Bishnoi, Ms. Manasvita Sharma; Mr. Manoj Ojla