The Rajasthan High Court has held that a writ petition challenging a recruitment process cannot be dismissed merely on the grounds of it becoming infructuous due to lapse of more than 6 months or the fact that subsequent selection processes were culminated.

“Although we do not agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge as regards the writ petition having become otiose and infructuous merely because more than six months time was lapsed or on the ground that further subsequent selection processes have been initiated and culminated, the same cannot be a reason for dismissal of writ petition. Law is well settled based on the legal maxim Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit that no Court shall oust a litigant merely on account of pendency of the writ petition for several years. No person can be made to suffer on account of the delay in deciding the cases.”

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma was hearing an appeal challenging the order of the single judge that had dismissed the petition filed by appellant, solely on the ground that waiting list lapsed after six months and fresh selection process had also begun.

For context, the appellant was placed on the merit list, however, allegedly he was not informed of the date of document verification. When he could not appear for the process, people lower to him on the merit list were appointed. Hence, the petition was filed which was dismissed by the single judge in the manner stated above. Hence, the present appeal.

It was contended by the appellant that since there was no internet facility in his native place, he was not in receipt of the information about the date of document verification. Further, the petition could not have been dismissed only because it was pending since long and the subsequent selection processes had begun.

After hearing the contentions, the Court agreed with the argument put forth by the appellant, and expressed disagreement with the rationale behind the dismissal of the petitioner by the single judge.

However, the Court took into account other material on record, and highlighted that the appellant had not impleaded any person who were alleged to have been appointed despite having lower merit than him.

The Court referred to a Supreme Court decision in Prabodh Verma & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., to hold that, “writ petition would not be maintainable if a person is challenging appointment of candidate without impleading them as party to the writ petition”.

In this background, while disagreeing with the reasoning of the single judge to dismiss the petition, the Court dismissed the petition based on its independent examination.

Title: Om Prakash Shakywal v Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 270

Click Here To Read/Download Order