REKHA PATEL vs STATE OF THE RAJASTHAN

(1 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:29357] [CW-11414/2025]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11414/2025
Babul Kalal S/o Kantilal Kalal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village
Raiyana, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of The Rajasthan, Department Of The Secondary
Education Through Its Secretary Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Chairman,
Durgapura, Jaipur.
4. District Education Officer (Recruitment), Directorate Of
Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7338/2025
Rekha Patel D/o Shri Devi Lal Patel, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident Of Village Post Piladar Tehsil Sarada District Udaipur
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of The Rajasthan, Department Of The Secondary
Education Through Its Secretary, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Chairman,
Durgapura, Jaipur.
4. Sant Gadbe Baba Amarwati University, Through Its
Registrar.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7848/2025
1. Bhagwan Singh S/o Bajrang Singh, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o Bapu Nagar, Senthi, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh
(Raj) 312001.
2. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Jaman Das, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Ward No 8, 4 Jst Jatsar District Anoopgarh Rajasthan.
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 03:06:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/08/2026 at 12:10:52 AM)

(2 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:29357] [CW-11414/2025]
3. Seema Upadhyay D/o Kantilal Upadhyay, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Village Post Tamtiya, Tehsil Sagwara, District
Dungarpur Rajasthan 314029.
4. Pawan Singh Rathore S/o Shri Ratan Singh Rathore, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o Laka Ka Khera, Post Tumberiya, Via
Singhpur, District Chittorgarh Rajasthan 312202.
5. Prabhu Lal Patel S/o Shri Padam Lal Patel, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Village Jhunthari, Post Jawas, Tehsil Kherwara,
District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Prakash Patel S/o Shri Keshav Lal, Aged About 33 Years,
Resident Of Village Post Piladar Tehsil Sarada District
Udaipur Rajasthan.
7. Tarun Patidar S/o Loveji Patidar, Aged About 40 Years, R/
o Diwda Chhota, Tehsil Sagwara District Dungarpur
Rajasthan 314027.
8. Jyoti Patidar D/o Shri Vasudev Patidar, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Jethana Tehsil Sagwara, District Dungarpur
Rajasthan 314031
9. Babul Kalal S/o Kantilal Kalal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Village Raiyana, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of The Rajasthan, Department Of The Secondary
Education Through Its Secretary Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Chairman,
Durgapura, Jaipur.
4. District Education Officer (Recruitment), Directorate Of
Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11349/2025
Seema Upadhyay D/o Kantilal Upadhyay, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Village Post Tamtiya, Tehsil Sagwara, District Dungarpur
Rajasthan 314029.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of The Rajasthan, Department Of The Secondary
Education Through Its Secretary Jaipur Rajasthan.
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 03:06:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/08/2026 at 12:10:52 AM)

(3 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:29357] [CW-11414/2025]
2. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Chairman,
Durgapura, Jaipur.
4. District Education Officer (Recruitment), Directorate Of
Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11377/2025
Prakash Patel S/o Shri Keshav Lal, Aged About 33 Years,
Resident Of Village Post Piladar Tehsil Sarada District Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of The Rajasthan, Department Of Secondary
Education Through Its Secretary Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Chairman,
Durgapura, Jaipur.
4. District Education Officer (Recruitment), Directorate Of
Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11420/2025
Tarun Patidar S/o Lavji Patidar, Aged About 40 Years, Diwda
Chhota, Tehsil Sagwara District Dungarpur Rajasthan 314027.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of The Rajasthan, Department Of The Secondary
Education Through Its Secretary Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Chairman,
Durgapura, Jaipur.
4. District Education Officer (Recruitment), Directorate Of
Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11450/2025
Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Jaman Das, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 03:06:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/08/2026 at 12:10:52 AM)

(4 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:29357] [CW-11414/2025]
Ward No. 8,4 Jst, Jatsar, District Anoopgarh Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of The Rajasthan, Department Of The Secondary
Education Through Its Secretary Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Chairman,
Durgapura, Jaipur.
4. District Education Officer (Recruitment), Directorate Of
Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11488/2025
Pawan Singh Rathore S/o Shri Ratan Singh Rathore, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Laka Ka Khera, Post Tumberiya, Via Singhpur,
District Chittorgarh Rajasthan 312202.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of The Rajasthan, Department Of The Secondary
Education Through Its Secretary Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Chairman,
Durgapura, Jaipur.
4. District Education Officer (Recruitment), Directorate Of
Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11567/2025
Prabhu Lal Patel S/o Shri Padam Lal Patel, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Village Jhunthari, Post Jawas, Tehsil Kherwara, District
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Department Of The Secondary
Education Through Its Secretary Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Chairman,
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 03:06:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/08/2026 at 12:10:52 AM)

(5 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:29357] [CW-11414/2025]
Durgapura, Jaipur.
4. District Education Officer (Recruitment), Directorate Of
Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14233/2025
Jyoti Patidar D/o Shri Vasudev Patidar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Jethana Tehsil Sagwara, District Dungarpur Rajasthan- 314031.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of The Rajasthan, Department Of The Secondary
Education Through Its Secretary Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Chairman,
Durgapura, Jaipur.
4. District Education Officer (Recruitment), Directorate Of
Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripudaman Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta, GC
Mr. Manish Patel
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
REPORTABLE
Reserved on:- 25/05/2026
Pronounced on:- 09/07/2026
1. The present batch of writ petitions proceeds on identical
questions of fact and law and, accordingly, with the consent of
learned counsel representing the respective parties, they have
been heard together and are being decided by this common
judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.11414/2025 is being treated as the lead case. The prayer
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 03:06:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/08/2026 at 12:10:52 AM)

(6 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:29357] [CW-11414/2025]
made in S.B. CWP No.11414/2025 is reproduced below for ready
reference:-
“It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this
writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed: -
A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the reason
stated in the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 (Annex-
8) may kindly be declared illegal and same may kindly be
quashed and set aside.
B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction. so far, the
degree of the petitioner in recruitment for the post of PTI
2022 is genuine and verified the respondents,
respondents may kindly be directed to provide
appointment to the petitioner for the post of PTI
Recruitment 2022 in his category.
C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the reason
of the non-selection made by the respondents may kindly
be declared illegal and unconstitutional and same may
kindly be quashed and set aside.
D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
respondents may kindly be directed to provide monetary,
notional and all consequential benefits to the petitioner.
E. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which
this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in
favour of the petitioner. Writ petition filed by the
petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.”
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Rajasthan
Staff Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RSSB’ for
short) (respondent No.3), in the year 2018, issued an
advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of
Physical Training Instructor, Grade-III. The petitioners appeared in
the selection process conducted by the RSSB in the year 2018
wherein they were declared successful and the RSSB thereafter
forwarded their names for issuance of appointment orders to the
competent authority of the Department of Secondary Education,
Rajasthan, Bikaner. However, at the time of document verification,
the degrees of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) submitted by the
petitioners were not found to be genuine. Consequently, the
Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, vide letter/communication
dated 10.07.2020 (Annexure-R/2) addressed to the Secretary of
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 03:06:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/08/2026 at 12:10:52 AM)

(7 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:29357] [CW-11414/2025]
the RSSB, informed that the petitioners are not eligible for
appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructor, Grade-III
and that appropriate legal/departmental proceedings be initiated
against them.
4. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to note here that
although the petitioners were not issued appointment orders
against the advertised post of Physical Training Instructor, Grade-
III on the ground that the degrees possessed by them were not
found to be genuine, no criminal/departmental proceedings were
initiated against them and no further order debarring them
permanently or for a specified period was issued either by the
RSSB or the appointing authority.
5. The petitioners, in the meanwhile, obtained B.P.Ed. degrees
from universities duly recognized by the UGC. On the basis of the
educational qualifications possessed by them, the petitioners
again participated in selection process in pursuance of Physical
Training Instructor Direct Recruitment Examination-2022
conducted by the RSSB wherein they were declared successful and
also secured a position in the final merit list. The RSSB thereafter
recommended the names of the petitioners for appointment
against the advertised posts to the Directorate of Secondary
Education, subject to document and character verification. The
Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, however, vide
letter/communication dated 27.12.2023 (Annexure-13) in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.7848/2025, informed the Secretary of the
RSSB that since, during the recruitment process conducted for the
post of Physical Training Instructor, Grade-III in the year 2018, the
documents submitted by the petitioners were not found to be
genuine, their candidature cannot be considered against the
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 03:06:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/08/2026 at 12:10:52 AM)

(8 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:29357] [CW-11414/2025]
advertised post of Physical Training Instructor, Grade-III
advertised in the year 2022. In other words, the petitioners were
permanently debarred from being considered for appointment to
the post of Physical Training Instructor, Grade-III due to the
alleged submission of false/fabricated documents.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the act
and action of the respondents in denying appointment to the
petitioners on the post of Physical Training Instructor, Grade-III in
the year 2022 despite their possessing the requisite eligibility and
merit deserves to be declared illegal and arbitrary by this Court.
Learned counsel submitted that although it is true that the
petitioners were denied appointment to the post of Physical
Training Instructor, Grade-III pursuant to the selection process
initiated in the year 2018 on the ground that during documents
verification, their degrees were not found to be genuine, the same
cannot now be made a ground to deprive them appointment to the
advertised post pursuant to them having cleared the recruitment
process, particularly when there is no specific allegation against
the petitioners of using unfair means in a competitive examination
or seeking appointment on the basis of forged or fabricated
degrees/documents.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners were at no
point of time informed by the respondents that they would be
ineligible for appointment to the advertised post due to the fact
that in the earlier process of selection conducted in year 2018
their degrees were not found to be genuine. He submitted that in
the absence of any specific condition or order of permanent
debarment, the petitioners cannot be deprived of appointment to
the post of Physical Training Instructor, Grade-III advertised in the
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 03:06:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/08/2026 at 12:10:52 AM)

(9 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:29357] [CW-11414/2025]
year 2022 despite their possessing the requisite eligibility and
merit.
7. Learned counsel submitted that the act and action of the
respondents in denying appointment to the petitioners on the post
of Physical Training Instructor, Grade-III is not only illegal,
arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India but is also violative of the various provisions of the
Rajasthan Educational (State and Subordinate) Service Rules,
2021 and the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Services
Selection Board Regulations for Prevention of Use of Unfair Means,
2016, which clearly stipulate that before issuing an order of
debarment from appearing in any examination of the Board for
whole life, in addition to cancellation of the examination in which
the candidate has allegedly submitted forged or fabricated
documents, an opportunity of hearing or making representation
shall be provided to the candidate. Learned counsel submitted that
a model employer is required to act in a fair, democratic and
transparent manner; however, the respondents in the present
case are acting in a manner prejudice to the interest of the
petitioners. On these grounds, learned counsel implored the Court
to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 28.03.2025
(Annexure-08) and direct the respondents to provide appointment
to the petitioners on the post of Physical Training Instructor,
Grade-III.
8. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents vehemently
submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioners were denied
appointment pursuant to the Physical Training Instructor, Grade-
III Recruitment-2018 on the ground that the degrees/educational
documents submitted by them were not found to be genuine. He
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 03:06:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/08/2026 at 12:10:52 AM)

(10 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:29357] [CW-11414/2025]
submitted that candidates who have been found to have used
forged and fabricated documents for securing employment cannot
claim any equity before this Court.
Learned counsel submitted that the RSSB, after receiving the
letter/communication dated 27.12.2023 from the office of the
Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner stating that in
view of the previous conduct of the petitioners, no fresh document
verification qua the marksheets/educational documents submitted
by them was required to be conducted, after taking into
consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the matter,
vide order dated 09.04.2024, declared the petitioners
permanently debarred from appearing in all examinations
conducted by the RSSB in future. It was contended that under the
relevant Rules, the RSSB has been clothed with sufficient powers
to permanently debar candidates from appearing in competitive
examinations conducted by it for whole life in case they are found
to have submitted forged/fabricated documents for securing public
appointment. Such drastic powers have been conferred upon the
RSSB to ensure the sanctity and purity of competitive
examinations in which lakhs of students appear every year and
also to ensure public faith, fairness and transparency in the
competitive examinations and to select the best candidates for the
advertised posts.
9. Lastly, learned counsel also urged that no independent
challenge to the order dated 09.04.2024 has been made by the
petitioners before any Court of law. On these grounds, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the present
writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be dismissed as
being devoid of merit.
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 03:06:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/08/2026 at 12:10:52 AM)

(11 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:29357] [CW-11414/2025]
10. Heard.
11. The following question arises for consideration upon hearing
learned counsel for the parties:-
Whether the order dated 09.04.2024, whereby the
Whether the order dated 09.04.2024, whereby the
petitioners were debarred from appearing in examinations
petitioners were debarred from appearing in examinations
conducted by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (RSSB) for
conducted by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (RSSB) for
allegedly using fake degrees/documents in the recruitment
allegedly using fake degrees/documents in the recruitment
process for the post of Physical Training Instructor, Grade III held
process for the post of Physical Training Instructor, Grade III held
in the year 2018, can be given retrospective effect so as to render
in the year 2018, can be given retrospective effect so as to render
them ineligible for the recruitment process for the post of Physical
them ineligible for the recruitment process for the post of Physical
Training Instructor, Grade III initiated in the year 2022, which had
Training Instructor, Grade III initiated in the year 2022, which had
already concluded prior to the issuance of the said debarment
already concluded prior to the issuance of the said debarment
order ?
order ?
12. Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Educational (State and
Subordinate) Service Rules, 2021, cited at the Bar, is reproduced
below for ready reference:-
“ 20. Employment of irregular or improper
means - A candidate who is or has been declared by the
Commission/Board/Appointing Authority/Committee guilty
of impersonation or of submitting fabricated documents or
documents which have been tampered with or of making
statements which are incorrect or false or of suppressing
material information or using or attempting to use unfair
means in the examination or interview or otherwise
resorting to any other irregular or improper means for
obtaining admission to the examination or appearance at
any interview, shall in addition to rendering himself/herself
liable to criminal prosecution, be debarred either
permanently or for a specified period,-
(a) by the Commission/Board/Appointing Authority from
admission to any examination or appearance at any
interview held by the Commission/Board
/Committee/Appointing Authority for selection of
candidates; and
(b) by the Government from employment under the
Government.”
13. Clause-2 and Clause-7 of the Rajasthan Subordinate and
Ministerial Services Selection Board Regulations for Prevention of
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 03:06:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/08/2026 at 12:10:52 AM)

(12 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:29357] [CW-11414/2025]
Use of Unfair Means in RSSB Examination, 2016 and Clause-6 of
the Schedule attached thereto are also reproduced below for
ready reference:-
“ 2. Definition
• (a) Public Examination means any examination
conducted by the Board.
• (b) "unfair means" in relation to an examination
while answering question or questions, means the
unauthorized help from any person or from any
material printed, hand written, recorded in any form,
or by way of talking with some person present in the
examination hall or over any electronic devices like
cell phone etc. or use of any unauthorized telephone,
wireless, electronic instrument or gadget, and also
includes any of the item or items mentioned in the
schedule appended to these regulations.
(c) The words and expressions used herein and not
•
defined, but defined in the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860) or The Rajasthan Pubic Examination
(Prevention of Unfair Means) Act 1992
(Rajasthan Act No. 27 of 1992) have the
meanings respectively assigned to them in that code
or the Act.”
“7. Procedure for Imposing Penalty
(1) No Penalty under these regulation shall be imposed
without giving the candidate an opportunity of hearing or
making such representation in writing as he or she may like
in this behalf within the period prescribed in the written
notice and taking such representation if any into
consideration.
(2) Every notice under clause (1) above shall be signed and
issued under the signature and seal of the Secretary of
the Board .
(3) Service of the notice issued as above shall be made by
way of an E-mail send to him on the E-mail Id of the
candidate given by him/her in online application form. In
addition to this, notice shall also be sent to the candidate on
his/her present address mentioned in the online application
form and service of the notice in this manner will be
deemed to be sufficient and proper.
(4) If the candidate does not make any representation or is
absent on the date of hearing fixed, the matter will be taken
exparte and shall be decided as the authority or the Board,
competent to decide, as he or the Board think fit.
(5) The order in the matter shall be signed and issued under
the signature and seal of the Secretary of the Board.”
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 03:06:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/08/2026 at 12:10:52 AM)

(13 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:29357] [CW-11414/2025]
Sr. No. Nature of
Cases
Punishment Disposal
Level
6. (i) Submitting forged
documents or submitting
fabricated documents
which have been
tampered with.
May be
debarred from
appearing in
any
examination of
Board for
whole life in
addition to
cancellation of
the
examination.
- -
(ii) Impersonation or
procuring impersonation
by any person i.e. sending
other person to appear in
examination on his/her
behalf.
(iii) If any of the claim of
the candidate mentioned
in the online application
form of the candidate is
found incorrect.
(iv) Disrupting conduct
of examination or
attempting to do so or
provoking fellow
examinees to boycott
examination, creating a
disorderly scene in
examination premises.
(v) Tempering with the
secrecy of the
examination in any or
attempting to do so.
(vi) Attempting to put
pressure on the Board/
Selection Board for
favour or abetting to
commit all or any of the
acts by board, specified in
this schedule.
(vii) Bringing in
examination, Centre
any weapon or similar
objects.
(viii) Harassing,
physically
mishandling/assaulting
Centre Supdt. or any
other person connected
with examination work.
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 03:06:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/08/2026 at 12:10:52 AM)
(ix) Obtaining copy of

(14 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:29357] [CW-11414/2025]
question paper through
improper means.
(x) Finding out
particulars of the
person/persons
connected with secret
work relating to
examination .
(emphasis supplied)
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having
carefully perused the material available on record, this Court finds
that there is no quarrel on the point that the petitioners were
denied appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructor,
Grade-III pursuant to the selection process conducted by the
RSSB in the year 2018 on the ground that during documents
verification, the marksheets/educational documents submitted by
them were not found to be genuine. The Director, Secondary
Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner, vide letter/communication dated
10.07.2020 (Annexure-R/2), while informing the Secretary, RSSB
that the marksheets/educational documents possessed or
submitted by the petitioners for securing employment had not
been found to be genuine, requested him to conduct
legal/departmental proceedings in that regard.
15. The record of the case indicates that the RSSB did not
initiate any legal/departmental proceedings against the petitioners
in conformity with the Rajasthan Educational (State and
Subordinate) Service Rules, 2021 and the Rajasthan Subordinate
and Ministerial Services Selection Board Regulations for Prevention
of Use of Unfair Means, 2016. Even no FIR(s) under the Rajasthan
Public Examination (Measures for Prevention of Unfair Means in
Recruitment) Act, 2022 were lodged against the petitioners. The
petitioners, in the meanwhile, obtained B.P.Ed. degrees from
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 03:06:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/08/2026 at 12:10:52 AM)

(15 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:29357] [CW-11414/2025]
universities which, according to them, are duly recognized by the
UGC and other regulatory bodies.
This Court also takes note of the fact that the petitioners are
now claiming appointment to the post of Physical Training
Instructor, Grade-III pursuant to the selection process initiated by
the RSSB in the year 2022 on the basis of the
marksheets/educational qualifications presently possessed by
them, subject to verification by the respondents.
16. It is pertinent to note here that the order of debarring the
petitioners from appearing in any examination conducted by the
RSSB for whole life (permanently), in addition to cancellation of
their candidature for examination of 2018, was issued prior to the
issuance of the advertisement for the post of Physical Training
Instructor, Grade-III Examination-2022. As a matter of fact,
totally non-speaking orders of permanent debarment have been
issued against the petitioners by the Secretary, RSSB after his
office received the letter/communication dated 27.12.2023
(Annexure-13) from the office of the Director, Secondary
Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner stating that since, in the year 2018,
in the earlier recruitment process, the examination/selection of
the petitioners had been cancelled for producing forged
marksheets/educational documents, no verification process qua
the new marksheets/educational documents submitted by the
petitioners in the recruitment process of 2022 was required to be
undertaken.
17. On a careful perusal of the order dated 09.04.2024 debarring
the petitioners from all examinations to be conducted by the RSSB
in future, this Court finds that the aforesaid document was neither
communicated to the petitioners nor were they afforded any
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 03:06:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/08/2026 at 12:10:52 AM)

(16 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:29357] [CW-11414/2025]
opportunity of hearing, as contemplated under Clause-7 of the
Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Services Selection Board
Regulations for Prevention of Use of Unfair Means, 2016. The
order dated 09.04.2024 debarring the petitioners from appearing
in all future examinations conducted by the RSSB was issued after
completion of the recruitment process initiated for the post of
Physical Training Instructor, Grade-III in the year 2022.
This Court fails to understand as to how an order debarring
the petitioners from appearing in all future competitive
examinations conducted by the RSSB can be given retrospective
effect. The power vested in the RSSB and the Director, Secondary
Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner to debar a candidate from
appearing in any competitive examination permanently or for a
specified period, as contemplated in the relevant rules and
regulations, cannot be exercised to take away the accrued rights
of selected candidates who have found a place in the provisional
merit list. The legitimate expectation of the candidates, as also the
requirement of fairness and transparency in recruitment to public
service, require that prompt action be taken by the authorities
against candidates who attempt to secure employment by
irregular or improper means.
18. This Court is conscious of the fact that the submission of
forged or fabricated documents for securing public employment is
a serious misconduct and competent authority is fully empowered
to initiate appropriate criminal or administrative proceeding
against delinquent candidate in accordance with law. However, the
existence of such power does not dispense with the requirement
of following the procedure prescribed under statutory rules and
principles of natural justice. In the opinion of this Court, since
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 03:06:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/08/2026 at 12:10:52 AM)

(17 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:29357] [CW-11414/2025]
the year 2022 till 2024 no order declaring the petitioners
permanently debarred from appearing in any examination
conducted by the RSSB was passed and communicated to them in
conformity with the relevant rules and, in the meantime, the
petitioners obtained fresh marksheets/educational qualifications
purportedly from universities established by law, subject to
verification by the respondents, the petitioners cannot now be
declared ineligible to participate in the recruitment process of
2022 retrospectively.
In other words, the order declaring the petitioners debarred
from appearing in examinations conducted by the RSSB ought to
have been passed either before initiation of the selection process
for the post of Physical Training Instructor, Grade-III in the year
2022 or at least before it was concluded, particularly when the
fact regarding their attempt to secure employment on the basis of
fake degrees came to the knowledge of the respondents in the
year 2020 itself. In any case, the petitioners, having been allowed
to participate in the recruitment process initiated in the year 2022,
cannot be deprived of appointment by retrospectively applying the
order dated 09.04.2024 declaring them permanently debarred
from examinations, if they hold valid marksheets/educational
documents issued by a university duly established by law.
19. As regards the objection concerning non-challenge to the
order dated 09.04.2024 independently by the petitioners, it would
suffice to note that the same, prima facie , does not appear to
have been served upon the petitioners individually. Further, the
said order has been issued without following the procedure
prescribed under Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Educational (State and
Subordinate) Service Rules,2021 and Clause 7 of the Rajasthan
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 03:06:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/08/2026 at 12:10:52 AM)

(18 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:29357] [CW-11414/2025]
Subordinate and Ministerial Services Selection Board Regulations
for Prevention of Use of Unfair Means in RSSB Examination,2016
which mandates the compliance with the prescribed procedure
before passing any order of permanently debarring a candidate
from appearing in any competent examination conducted by the
RSSB. The said order was also passed in violation of the principles
of natural justice. As noticed above, under the relevant Rules, it is
not necessary that in all cases where candidates are found to have
used irregular/improper means for securing employment, they
shall be permanently debarred from appearing in examinations. In
given circumstances, the RSSB/appointing authority may decide to
debar a candidate from appearing in competitive examinations for
a specified period. The argument raised by the respondents in this
regard is, therefore, rejected.
20. In view of the above discussion, the present batch of writ
petitions deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The action of the
respondents in declaring the petitioners permanently debarred
from appearing in all examinations conducted by the RSSB is
declared illegal and arbitrary. The respondents are directed to
initiate proceedings for verification of the marksheets/educational
documents submitted by the petitioners and, in case the same are
found to be genuine, the petitioners shall be given appointment to
the post of Physical Training Instructor, Grade-III in accordance
with their merit in the respective categories. The entire exercise of
verification of the marksheets/educational documents shall be
completed by the respondents within a period of four months from
today. The petitioners shall not be entitled to any back wages;
however, they shall be entitled to seniority from the date a person
junior to them was appointed to the advertised post.
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 03:06:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/08/2026 at 12:10:52 AM)

(19 of 19)
[2026:RJ-JD:29357] [CW-11414/2025]
21. The stay petitions and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
22. A copy of this order be placed in each file.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
31-40/ Divya Raj Jasmatiya/660
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 03:06:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/08/2026 at 12:10:52 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)