RPSC Assistant Professor recruitment in Med Edu dept stayed till Division Bench rules on 10% interview cap: Rajasthan HC

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has stayed a batch of RPSC Assistant Professor recruitments in the medical education department till a Division Bench rules on the interview-marks formula used by the Commission. Justice Ravi Chirania passed the order on 15 April 2026 in six connected writ petitions led by Dr. Amit Kumar Sharma.

One of the counsels for the petitioners Deependra Yadav who assisted Sr Adv RK Mathur in the matter said that the dispute traces back to an RPSC advertisement dated 27 November 2021 for Assistant Professor posts in the Medical Education Department. The Commission held a screening test in May 2022 and then went silent for more than three years. The merit list and reserve list were finally issued on 22 December 2025 — without any breakdown of marks between the written test, academics, and the interview.

Crucially, in between the screening and the result, the State Government changed the rules. By a notification dated 23 May 2022, the Department of Personnel capped the interview weightage at 10% of total marks for direct recruitments by RPSC. The notification gave effect to a Cabinet decision of 10 May 2022. The petitioners say RPSC ignored this cap when it drew up the December 2025 list.

Dr. Amit Kumar Sharma, the lead petitioner, had applied for an Assistant Professor post in TB and Chest. He was placed third on the reserve list. He moved the High Court alleging that several candidates with lower written-test scores were pushed above him through inflated interview marks.

Counsel for the petitioners — led by senior advocate R.K. Mathur — contended that the December 2025 merit list violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They argued that the interview formula used by RPSC is non-transparent because it discloses no breakdown of marks. They also relied on the Supreme Court rulings in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) and Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (2000). Both judgments hold that the weightage assigned to the interview cannot exceed 10% of the total marks.

The petitioners also pointed to a parallel ruling by a coordinate bench of this Court. In Dr. Rachita Mathur v. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP 15018/2024), Justice Sameer Jain had quashed a similar RPSC selection on 10 January 2025 on identical reasoning. The State and RPSC have appealed that ruling, and DB Special Appeal Writ Petition No. 79/2025 is currently being argued before a Division Bench.

On behalf of the State and RPSC, counsel M.F. Baig led a team contesting the petitions. Their core stand has been that the 23 May 2022 notification cannot be applied retrospectively to a recruitment that began in November 2021. They have also defended the marks tabulation followed by the Commission as its accepted internal practice. RPSC further argued that the recruitment process has effectively attained finality with the issuance of the merit list.

Justice Ravi Chirania began by tagging the six petitions together. The single bench then turned to the legal question on which all of them turn — whether RPSC’s interview-marks formula is sustainable. The Court found that the same question is already before a Division Bench in the Rachita Mathur appeal.

The order squarely records the overlap. It notes: “In these connected petitions, the common issue involved is that the candidates have challenged the allocation of marks for the interview.” The Court added that the issue “has already been dealt in identical matter by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15018/2024.”

In plain terms, the single bench was unwilling to issue a ruling that might cut across what the appellate court eventually decides. Two parallel rulings on the same point would only invite confusion and further litigation.

That logic shaped the operative direction. The Court directed the respondent-State and the Commission “not to proceed further till the disposal of the special appeal as pending before the Division Bench”. In practical terms, RPSC cannot make any appointment under the 27 November 2021 advertisement until the Division Bench rules.

Once the Division Bench disposes of the appeal, “the respective counsel would be at liberty to file appropriate application for modification/ vacation of the order”. Either side can therefore approach the single bench afresh.

In effect, the High Court tagged the six writ petitions together. It restrained the State of Rajasthan and the Commission from taking any further step in the Assistant Professor recruitment under the 27 November 2021 advertisement. Both sides have liberty to apply for modification or vacation of the order once the Division Bench decides the pending special appeal.

Case details