// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4897/2004 With S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.4165/2004 {Smt. Kumkum and Others Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others} Date of Order ::: 01.05.2009 Present Hon’ble the Chief Justice Mr. Deepak Verma Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Anupam Agarwal, Counsel for petitioners Shri S.N. Kumawat, Advocate, for Shri S.N. Kumawat, Addl. Advocate General, and Shri Jinesh Jain, Govt. Counsel for respondents No.1 and 3 Shri A.K. Sharma, Counsel for respondent No.2 #### By the Court:- With consent, arguments heard. An advertisement was issued on 04.08.2003 for filling up total 108 posts of Munsiff and Judi- cial Magistrate under the Rajasthan Judicial Ser- vice Rules, 1955 (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the Rules of 1955’) for male and female candi- dates of general and reserved categories, separate- ly. Out of the aforesaid total number of posts 108 advertised, 89 posts were kept for general category and 19 for SC and ST. The last date of submission of the application forms was fixed as 15.09.2003. All the petitioners, pursuant to the said advertisement, submitted their forms. A written ex- amination was held and results were declared in the // 2 // year 2004 itself. The petitioners were not success- ful in the said examination; thereafter the process of selection continued. After having failed to successfully com- plete in the said examination, they have filed this writ petition challenging the Schedule appended to the Rules being contrary to the Rule 19 of the Rules of 1955, on variety of grounds. On show cause notice being issued, respon- dent No.1, respondent No.2 and respondent No.3, all of them filed their separate replies denying the allegations as leveled in the writ petition. They all have said in one voice that the petitioners have waken up from their slumber only on being de- clared unsuccessful in the written examination, in which they had appeared. They have also contended that the said Rule is in existence for decades and they never challenged the same before applying to the post. They have, therefore, contended that the writ petition has been filed with mala-fide inten- tions. It has also been contended that subsequent to the Notification issued in the year 2003, fresh Notifications for filling-up subsequent posts were also issued in the year 2005 and 2008. In all prob- abilities, the petitioners must have appeared in the subsequent examinations. For all these reasons, we are of the opin- ion that this writ petition has virtually been ren- dered infructuous, and in any case it is not a fit // 3 // case where we would like to examine the constitu- tional validity of the Schedule, as challenged by the petitioners, as it has been rendered only of academic interest. However, we keep that right open to the petitioners to take up in an appropriate case, but as far as merit of the case is concerned, we find no substance and it is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Consequent upon dismissal of the writ peti- tion, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. (Deepak Verma) C.J. //Jaiman//