Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Akbar Mehndi vs State Personnel Department … on 16 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:12389]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
(1) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15084/2016
1 Rakesh Saini S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad Saini, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Village Ratan Nagar, Railway Station Dabla,
Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, Distt. Sikar. (Raj.)
2 Om Prakash S/o Sh. Vida Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
Village And Post Somala, Tehsil Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli
(Raj.)
3 Vijay Kumar S/o Lada Ram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Plot
No. 137, Yagshala Ki Bavadi, Harijan Basti, Purani Basti,
Jaipur (Raj.)
4 Firoj Khan Kureshi S/o Sh. Babudin Kureshi, Aged About 40
Years, R/o 131, Painter Colony, Meeno Ka Tiba, Nahari Ka
Naka, Near Neha Nursing Home Babi Gali Me, Shastri
Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
5 Vijendra Goyar S/o Sh. Shyam Lal Goyar, Aged About 43
Years, R/o 43, Nahargarh Kile Ke Niche, Purani Basti, Jaipur
(Raj.)
6 Rajendra Kumar S/o Sh. Sohan Lal, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o A-5, Amritpuri, Ghatgate, Jaipur.
7 Rakesh Ranawat S/o Sh. Prahalad Sahay, Aged About 39
Years, R/o A 327, Purana Vidhyadhar Nagar, 15 No. Bus
Stand Opp. Dashahra Park, Jaipur.
8 Om Prakash S/o Narayan Lal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
Plot No. 241, Shyampuri Hida Ki Mori, Near Gandhi Circle,
Jaipur.
9 Puran Mal Dhanka S/o Sh. Babu Lal Dhanka, Aged About
37 Years, R/o Village Ramsinghpura, Post Vatika, Tehsil
Sanganer, Jaipur.
10 Nand Ganesh Sharma S/o Sh. Shyoji Lal Sharma, Aged
About 39 Years, R/o Village Dhola Ka Kheda, Post Dhuli,
Tehsil Malpura, Distt. Tonk.
11 Sher Singh S/o Sh. Kishore Singh Rathore, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Near Gurudwara, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.
12 Ramesh S/o Kaluram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 3624,
Chenapuria Harijan Basti, Chokdi Topkhana Huzuri, Jaipur.
13 Naresh Verma S/o Sh. Shambhu Dayal, R/o Village And
Post Saiwar, Shahpura, Jaipur.
14 Dharmendra Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Sitram Sharma, R/o
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (2 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
Village Kanpura, Post Mahar Kalan, Via Samod. Tehsil
Chomu, Distt. Jaipur.
15 Pawan Rana S/o Sh. Om Prakash Rana, R/o B- 48,
Mahatama Colony, Nahari Ka Naka, Near Panchmukhi
Hanuman Mandir, Jaipur.
16 Raj Kumar Srimal S/o Sh. Prem Chand Srimal, R/o 6-B,
Geeta Bhawan, Shyam Mandir Ki Gali, Hida Ki Mori,
Ramganj, Jaipur.
17 Ashok Kumar Tiwari S/o Sh. Radhe Shyam, R/o Village And
Post Kalota Via Kundal, Distt. Dausa.
18 Sushil S/o Sh. Laxmi Narayan Biwal, Aged About 41 Years,
R/o Hida Ki Mori, Gandhi Circle, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1 The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2 The Assistant Secretary, Department Of Personnel (Kh-2),
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3 Babu Lal Verma S/o Sh. Dalu Ram, Aged About 54 Years,
R/o 146, Panchayat Ki Dukano Ke Pass, Behind Power
House, Muhana Road, Bhankrota, Jaipur.
4 Manju Devi Sharma W/o Sh. Navneet Sharma, Aged About
57 Years, R/o 5253, Surajpole Gate, Jugal Jodi Hanuman
Mandir, Galta Road, Jaipur.
5 Rajendra Prasad Meena S/o Sh. Mool Chand Meena, Aged
About 50 Years, R/o Plot No. A/2, Narvar Puri Colony,
Badan Pura Road, Jaipur.
6 Sonu Prasad S/o Sh. Radhe Shyam Prasad, Aged About 45
Years, R/o 2-B-37, Shiv Shakti Colony, Shastri Nagar,
Jaipur.
7 Shiv Ram Vaishnav S/o Sh. Dhanna Das, Aged About 57
Years, R/o Plot No. 8, Heera Vihar Shri Ji Nagar, Rampura
Road, Sanganer, Jaipur.
8 Ram Charan Sharma S/o Sh. Nand Lal Sharma, Aged About
56 Years, R/o Plot No. 57, Nand Vihar, Shyopur Road,
Pratap Nagar, Jaipur.
9 Kailash Chand Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Rai Sharma, Aged
About 51 Years, R/o Village Kalota, Tehsil Dausa.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (3 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
10 Shyam Sunder Gurjar, S/o Sh. Hanuman Sahay Gurjar,
Aged About 50 Years, R/o 4105 Gangabaksh Joshi Ka
Rasta, Galta Road, Jaipur.
11 Dharmendra Kumar Mishra, S/o Sh. Prassan Kumar, Aged
About 49 Years, R/o Plot No. 15 New Colony, Near Railway
Station, Pot Khadi Baag, Chomu, Distt. Jaipur.
12 Raghuveer Singh, S/o Sh. Dhar Singh, Aged About 44
Years, R/o C-209, Tara Nagri Khirni Phatak Ke Pass
Jhotwara, Jaipur.
13 Radheshyam Bohara S/o Sh. Babu Lal, Aged About 43
Years, R/o 1125 Saha Sadan, Barkat Nagar, Kisan Marg,
Jaipur.
14 Ram Babu Sharma, S/o Sh. Bakesh Sharma, Aged About
43 Years, R/o Shriji Sadan, Post Office Ke Samne, Tonk
Road, Jaipur.
15 Deep Singh Shekhawat, S/o Sh. Sher Singh Shekhawat,
Aged About 43 Years, R/o 27 Shankar Nagar Kagdiwada,
Bhrampuri, Jaipur.
16 Rakesh Kumar Sharma, S/o Sh. Hanuman Sahay Sharma,
Aged About 42 Years, R/o H.no. 38 Bn Colony, Hatwara
Road, Jaipur.
17 Kalu Singh, S/o Sh. Poonam Chand Gahlot, Aged About 60
Years, R/o Plot No. F-3, Prem Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
18 Suresh Kumar Padiyar, S/o Sh. Ram Sahay Sain, Aged
About 58 Years, R/o Village Chandlai, Via Shivdas, Tehsil
Chaksu, Dist. Jaipur.
19 Mahindra Kumar, S/o Sh. Ram Das, Aged About 57 Years,
R/o Loco Colony, Hasanpura, Jaipur.
20 Ramesh Kumar Upadhyay, S/o. Bhanwar Lal, Aged About
57 Years, R/o 2-D-29, Vishvkarma Colony, Tara Nagar,
Shastri Nagar, Jaipur.
21 Prem Bai Gurjar W/o Sh. Chote Lal Gurjar, Aged About 56
Years, R/o 49 Vijay Sigh Pathik Nagar, Kalwar Road,
Jhotwara, Jaipur.
22 Narendra Singh S/o Sh. Jawahar Singh, Aged About 53
Years, R/o 198 Om Shiv Colony, Marg No. 4, Near Railway
Phatak, Jaipur.
23 Umed Singh S/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 51 Years,
R/o 6, Shrirampuri Colony, Shalimar Chouraha Ke Aage,
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (4 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
Niwari Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
24 Khem Chand Sharma S/o Sh. Chiman Lal Sharma, Aged
About 51 Years, R/o B/44, Navdeep Vihar, Lalanpura,
Heerapura, Jaipur.
25 Jai Kumar Meena, S/o Sh. Mool Chand Meena, Aged About
51 Years, R/o Village Chawandiya, Bawadi Ki Dhani, Tehsil
Bassi, Distt. Jaipur.
26 Durga Prasad Sharma S/o Sh. Shiv Sahay Sharma, Aged
About 50 Years, R/o Village And Post Bobas Railway
Station, Tehsil Phulera, Distt. Jaipur.
27 Shyam Singh Shekhawat S/o Sh. Ganga Singh Shekhawat,
Aged About 49 Years, R/o B-82, Bhagwan Bahubali Nagar,
Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
28 Naval Kishore Vijay S/o Sh. Jagdish Narayan Vijay, Aged
About 48 Years, R/o 4172, Murli Manohar Ji Ka Mandir,
Ganga Baksh Joshi Ka Rasta, Surajpole, Galta Road, Jaipur.
29 Raj Rajeshwar Sharma S/o Sh. Hanuman Sahay Sharma,
Aged About 48 Years, R/o 26, Shanti Colony, Outside
Gangapole Gate, Badanpura, Jaipur.
30 Vinod Kumar Sharma, S/o Sh. Shyam Lal Sharma, Aged
About 48 Years, R/o 113, Jeen Mata Ka Khurra, Galta Road,
Jaipur.
31 Gopal Kumawat, S/o Sh. Bhairu Lal, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o 87, Shivpuri Colony, Shriram Nagar, Jaipur.
32 Brij Mohan Yogi, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Pinjarpol
Goshala, Tonk Road, Sanganer, Jaipur.
33 Kanhaiya Lal Saini, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Nayabas,
Jodhpura, Via Kankreda, Chomu, Distt. Jaipur.
34 Ashok Kumar Udawat, S/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 46
Years, R/o 85, Hathi Babu Ka Hatta, Station Road, Opp.
Polovictory Cinema, Jaipur.
35 Banwari Lal Saini, S/o Sh. Laxman Prasad Saini, Aged
About 46 Years, R/o 18-B Govind Vihar Vistar, Gurjar Ki
Thadi, Jaipur.
36 Geeta Devi Pareek, W/o (Late) Sh. Shiv Kumar Pareek,
Aged About 44 Years, R/o 14, Kaushalya Bhawan, Bhartiya
Colony, Shivaji Nagar, Bhrampuri, Jaipur.
37 Shambhu Singh, S/o Sh. Jagdish Singh, Aged About 62
Years, R/o 59, Shanti Nagar, Jaipur.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (5 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
38 Babu Lal Sharma, S/o Sh. Hanuman Sahay Sharma, Aged
About 60 Years, R/o 50, Seemawaton Ki Dhani, C-
Hasanpura, Jaipur.
39 Asha Devi Meena, W/o Sh. Hanuman Sahay, Aged About 59
Years, R/o 7, Purani Ghat, Khaniya, Agra Road, Opp. Jain
Mandir, Jaipur.
40 Ramesh Chand Sharma, S/o Sh. Roop Narayan Sharma,
Aged About 58 Years, R/o 68, Maisingh Pura, Tonk Road,
Jaipur.
41 Mahendra Singh Gurjar, S/o Sh. Jwan Singh, Aged About
58 Years, R/o Quarter No. H-501, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur.
42 Banwari Lal Sharma, S/o Sh. Kanhiya Lal Sharma, Aged
About 57 Years, R/o Village And Post Danau Khurd, Via
Tunga, Tehsil Bassi, Jaipur.
43 Ram Kishore Sharma, S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, Aged
About 57 Years, R/o Village Manda, Post Kalwar, Distt.
Jaipur.
44 Hanuman Sahay Jat S/o Sh. Devi Lal Jat, Aged About 57
Years, R/o Bijaniyo Ki Dhani, Village Bihari Pura, Post
Sisrali, Via Chomu, Distt. Jaipur.
45 Ranjeet Singh Rajput, S/o Sh. Sampat Singh, Aged About
57 Years, R/o 488, Jadoun Nagar, Opp. Railway Station,
Durgapura, Jaipur.
46 Rajesh Kumar Sharma, S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, Aged
About 51 Years, R/o Village Danaas Post Jobner, Distt.
Jaipur.
47 Chittar Mal Dhaka S/o Sh. Babu Lal Dhaka, Aged About 51
Years, R/o Village Ramsinghpura Post Vatika, Tehsil
Sanganer, Jaipur
48 Ram Lal Gurjar, S/o Sh. Mangla Ram Gurjar, Aged About 51
Years, R/o Village Sirohi, Tehsil Amer, Distt. Jaipur.
49 Rakesh Kumar Sharma, S/o Sh. Om Prakash Sharma, Aged
About 51 Years, R/o Station Road, Indira Colony, Near
Saraswati School, Ward No. 15, Chomu, Distt. Jaipur.
50 Rajendra Singh S/o Sh. Phool Singh, Aged About 50 Years,
R/o 302/29 Phase-1, Baijai Ki Kothi, Gali No. 2, Jhalana
Doongri, Jaipur.
51 Virendra Singh S/o Sh. Ganesh Singh, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Plot No. 28, Sarod Nagar, Niwaru Road,
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (6 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
Jhotwara, Jaipur.
52 Ram Singh Shekhawat S/o Sh. Ganga Singh Shekhawat,
Aged About 49 Years, R/o B-82, Bhagwan Bahubali Nagar,
Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
53 Pawan Kumar Arya S/o Sh. Ram Lal Arya, Aged About 49
Years, R/o Hida Ki Mori, Shyampurai, Jaipur.
54 Ramesh Chand Saini S/o Sh. Ramswaroop Saini, Aged
About 48 Years, R/o 124/16, Thadi Market, Agarwal Farm,
Mansarovar, Jaipur.
55 Dilip Kumar Sain S/o Mangtu Ram Sain, Aged About 48
Years, R/o 64/577, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur.
56 Ram Singh Rathore S/o Sh. Ganesh Singh Rathore, Aged
About 47 Years, R/o Hh, 124 Rajput Colony, Jhalana Marg,
Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
57 Arvind Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Om Prakash Sharma, Aged
About 47 Years, R/o Station Road, Indira Colony, Near
Saraswati School Ward No. 15 Chomu, Distt. Jaipur.
58 Rameshwar Prasad Sain S/o Sh. Ganga Sahay Sain, Aged
About 47 Years, R/o 78 Basant Vihar, B Colony, Agra Road,
Jaipur.
59 Rang Lal Gurjar S/o Sh. Sanwal Ram Gurjar, Aged About 46
Years, R/o Village Damshya, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Distt.
Jaipur.
60 Surendra Singh Meena S/o Sh. Batti Lal Meena, Aged About
46 Years, R/o B-220, Shiv Officer Colony, Ras Colony,
Jagatpura, Jaipur.
61 Parwat Singh S/o Sh. Chandar Singh, Aged About 44 Years,
R/o D-1-27, Shekhawat Colony, B Murti Nagar, Meena Wala
Sirsi Road, Jaipur.
62 Vikram Singh Rathore S/o Sh. Kishore Singh Rathore, Aged
About 41 Years, R/o G-69, Majdoor Nagar, Ajmer Road,
Jaipur.
63 Mahesh Singh S/o Sh. Ram Lal Singh, Aged About 68
Years, R/o H-2, Majdoor Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.
64 Prabhu Lal Raiger S/o Sh. Mool Chand Raiger, Aged About
58 Years, R/o Village Ramchandra Pura, Post Bhidani Via
Vatika, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur.
65 Ranveer Singh Rathore S/o Sh. Mangal Singh, Aged About
56 Years, R/o 10, Kamla Nagar, Behind Choradiya Petrol
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (7 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
Pump, Sanganer, Jaipur.
66 Mahendra Singh S/o Sh. Kan Singh, Aged About 54 Years,
R/o Plot No. 12, Shriram Nagar Colony, Sodala Jaipur.
67 Ramgopal Meena S/o Sh. Sitaram Meena, Aged About 54
Years, R/o 4582 Surajpole Bazar, Opp. Darbar School,
Jaipur.
68 Nand Kishore Mehra S/o Sh. Kailash Shankar Mehra, Aged
About 54 Years, R/o 1818, Mehro Ki Nadi, Ramchandra Ji Ki
Chokri, Jaipur.
69 Jagdish Prasad Gurjar S/o Sh. Kanchan Singh Gurjar, Aged
About 53 Years, R/o Village Aashapura, Ward No. 1, Tehsil
Baswa, Panchayat Samiti Bandikui, Dausa.
70 Mangi Lal Gurjar S/o Sh. Shriya Ram Doi, Aged About 52
Years, R/o Village And Post Kanota, Via Kunda, Distt.
Dausa.
71 Babu Lal Sharma S/o Sh. Rudmal Sharma, Aged About 52
Years, R/o Village And Post Lubana, Via Achori, Tehsil Amer,
Distt. Jaipur.
72 Pappu Lal Sain S/o Sh. Prahalad Sahay Sain, Aged About
52 Years, R/o H-532 Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur.
73 Meena Devi W/o Sh. Kailash Singh, Aged About 51 Years,
R/o 754, Sanjay Nagar, Kachi Basti, Near Dcm, Ajmer
Road, Jaipur.
74 Jamaluddin S/o Bablu Khan, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
1664B, Kanwatiyo Ki Pipli, Near Ramgan Bazar, Masjid,
Jaipur.
75 Naushad Khan S/o Sh. Dilwar Khan, Aged About 50 Years,
R/o 104, Pathano Ka Chowk, Brahmpuri, Jaipur.
76 Girraj Prasad Bairwa S/o Sh. Ram Sahay, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Village Girdharpura, Post Kelai, Tehsil Sikrai,
Distt. Dausa.
77 Surendra Singh Chauhan S/o Sh. Kalyan Singh Chouhan,
Aged About 50 Years, R/o F-49, Saroj Pharm, Nandpuri,
Jaipur.
78 Rameshwar Prasad Meena S/o Sh. Panchu Ram Meena, R/o
Village Kala Kho, Tehsil Sikarai, Distt. Dausa.
79 Kanhaiya Lal Mahawat S/o Sh. Chhoti Lal, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Sh. Plot No. 2818, Chokri Topkhana, Hajuri Ki
Kothi. Kheliyon Machli Market, Near Ganga Mata Mandir,
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (8 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
Jaipur.
80 Narendra Singh S/o Sh. Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Plot No. 175, Pratap Nagar, Murlipura Scheme,
Jaipur.
81 Jai Prakash Devanda S/o Sh. Ganga Ram Devanda, Aged
About 49 Years, R/o Village Nangal Siras, Tehsil Amer,
Distt. Jaipur.
82 Satya Narayan Bijaarniya S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Bijarniya,
Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Bihari Pura, Post Sisarli,
Amer, Via Chomu, Distt. Jaipur.
83 Narpat Singh S/o Sh. Ramdeedn Singh, Aged About 48
Years, R/o 43/35/8, Swarn Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
84 Vijay Solanki S/o Sh. Jagdish Lal Solanki, Aged About 48
Years, R/o Plot No. 111, Gali No. 7, Queens Road, Jaipur.
85 Ashutosh Sharma S/o Sh. Laxmi Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 47 Years, R/o 46, Murti Nagar, Sirsi Road, Jaipur.
86 Manish Sadhvani S/o Sh. Prabhu Dayal Sadhwani, Aged
About 46 Years, R/o 52/122, Rajat Path, Mansarovar,
Jaipur.
87 Mahaveer Sharma S/o Sh. Jata Shankar Sharma, Aged
About 46 Years, R/o 4310, Govind Rai Ji Ka Rasta, Aakhri
Chouraha, Purani Basti, Jaipur.
88 Lakh Raj Meena S/o Sh. Hanuram Prasad Meena, Aged
About 44 Years, R/o 163, Sadbhawana Nagar, Meeno Ki
Aara Mashine Ke Samene, Nangla Susavatan, Naradpura,
Kunda, Amer, Jaipur.
89 Rampal Sharma S/o Sh. Chittar Mal Sharma, Aged About
64 Years, R/o Village Rampura, Post Bilwa, Distt. Jaipur.
90 Mahaveer Prasad Balai S/o Sh. Manna Lal Jain, Aged About
61 Years, R/o 61/231, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur
91 Raj Kumari Sharma W/o Sh. Ganga Sahay Sharma, Aged
About 61 Years, R/o S-6, Nayala House, Anand Puri, Moti
Doongri Road, Jaipur.
92 Asha Bhatnagar W/o Sh. Ramniwas Bhatnagar, Aged About
61 Years, R/o 262/147, Gandhi Kuteer, Pratap Nagar
Sanganer, Jaipur.
93 Vimla Devi Meena W/o Sh. Hauman Sahay, Aged About 61
Years, R/o 163, Sadbhawana Nagar, Meeno Ki Aara Mashine
Ke Samene, Nangla Susavatan, Naradpura, Kunda, Amer,
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (9 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
Jaipur.
94 Manak Chand Pareek S/o Sh. Gopal Lal Pareek, Aged About
59 Years, R/o Plot No. 7988, Pawan Putra Ji Colony,
Panchawala, Amrpali Marg, Karni Palace Rod, Vaishali
Nagar, Jaipur.
95 Ram Kishor S/o Sh. Panchu Ram Sharma, Aged About 59
Years, R/o 94, Hasanpura C, Saiyo Ki Masjid Ke Pass,
Jaipur.
96 Ashok Sharma S/o Sh. Gopal Bihari Sharma, Aged About
59 Years, R/o 4118, Ganga Bax Mali Ki Gali, Nahar Garh
Road, Jaipur.
97 Salab Kumar S/o Sh. Mahaveer Singh, Aged About 58
Years, R/o 602, Murlipura Scheme, Vishvkarma Sikar Road,
Jaipur.
98 Ram Prasad Sharma S/o Sh. Ramniwas Sharma, Aged
About 57 Years, R/o C/o Ganesh Chand, 272, Surya Nagar,
Gopalpura Byepass, Jaipur.
99 Vijay Laxmi W/o Sh. Ganpat Singh, Aged About 57 Years,
R/o Plot No. 8, Village Prempura, Near Jharkhand Mahadev,
Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.
100 Laxman Gurjar S/o Sh. Prabhu Narayan Gurjar, Aged About
56 Years, R/o 512-513, Kalyan Bhawan, Luharon Ka
Khurra, Ghate Gate, Jaipur.
101 Lal Chand Verma S/o Sh. Dhanna Lal, Aged About 55
Years, R/o 67, Purhoit Ji Ka Bagh, 22 Godam, Hawa Sarak,
Jaipur.
102 Rekha Tejwani W/o Sh. Kishan Chand Tejwani, Aged About
55 Years, R/o 2184, Denanath Ji Ka Rasta, Chandpole
Bazar, Jaipur.
103 Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged About
55 Years, R/o B-474, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur.
104 Mahesh Chand Meena S/o Sh. Santu Ram Meena, Aged
About 55 Years, R/o H. No. 8, Saini Colony, C-3, Mahesh
Nagar, Jaipur.
105 Ram Charan Meena S/o Sh. Kishori Lal Meena, Aged About
55 Years, R/o 358-A, Kusum Vihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
106 Deepak Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Kailash Chand Sharma,
Aged About 55 Years, R/o 30-32, Ramdware Ki Gali, Bagru
Walo Ka Rasta, Panchwa Chouraha, Chandpole Bazar,
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (10 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
Jaipur.
107 Madan Lal Saini S/o Sh. Nanga Ram Saini, Aged About 54
Years, R/o 429, Khatipura Road, Hasanpura, Jaipur.
108 Ram Babu Gurjar S/o Sh. Prabhu Narayan Gurjar, Aged
About 52 Years, R/o 512-513, Kalyan Bhawan, Luharon Ka
Khurra, Ghat Gate, Jaipur,
109 Girraj Pareek S/o Sh. Braj Mohan Pareek, Aged About 52
Years, R/o 326, Gautam Nagar Tonk Phatak, Jaipur.
110 Lalit Mohan Verma S/o Sh. Nathu Lal, Aged About 52 Years,
R/o 22, Hasanpura B, Raiger Basti, Jaipur
111 Ramphool Meena S/o Sh. Ram Nath Meena, Aged About 52
Years, R/o Village Jhar, Post Dudli, Tehsil Bassi, Distt.
Jaipur.
112 Om Prakash Mourya S/o Sh. Lal Chand, Aged About 51
Years, R/o 17, Hasanpura, Jaipur.
113 Devi Nandan S/o Sh. Shrawan Kumar, Aged About 51
Years, R/o 100, Ashok Pura Sodala, Jaipur.
114 Suresh Chand Sharma S/o Sh. Bihari Lal Sharma, Aged
About 50 Years, R/o Post Achalpura, Tehsil Chaksu, Distt.
Jaipur.
115 Babu Lal Gurjar S/o Sh. Kishori Lal Gurjar, Aged About 49
Years, R/o Village Jaipual Pura, Post Pahadiya Peepala Via
Chittora, Renwal Majhi, Tehsil Phagi, Distt. Jaipur.
116 Yogesh Kumar Sain S/o Sh. Radheshyam Sain, Aged About
49 Years, R/o 150, Subhash Colony, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur.
117 Lekh Raj Harijan S/o Sh. Badri Lal, Aged About 49 Years,
R/o 3/497, Jawahar Nagar, Teela No 3, Kachi Basti, Jaipur.
118 Sunil Panwar S/o Sh. Mohan Lal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o
8, Gangauri Bazar, Near Chougaan Stadium, Jaipur.
119 Rajendra Singh S/o Sh. Matadeen, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o D-58, Yogi Marg, Mazdoor Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.
120 Mahendra Singh Bisth S/o Sh. Bacche Singh, Aged About
47 Years, R/o 29, Chatarpal Nagar Ii, Near Bus Stand,
Jagatpura, Jaipur.
121 Rajendra Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Shastri Kumar Sharma,
Aged About 47 Years, R/o 17/c-469, Kailash Puri Kachi
Basti, Amer Road, Jaipur.
122 Ashok Kumar Chanwaria S/o Sh. Shiv Charan, Aged About
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (11 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
46 Years, R/o Bhrampuri, Harijan Basti, Near Chougan
Stadium, Jaipur.
123 Dinesh Nakwal S/o Sh. Bhagwan Sahay, Aged About 46
Years, R/o A-18, Amrat Puri, Ghat Gate, Jaipur.
124 Santosh Kanwar S/o Sh. Mohan Lal, Aged About 46 Years,
R/o S-27, Vishwakarma Colony, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur.
125 Vinod Kumar Jaiswal S/o Sh. Ramji Lal, Aged About 46
Years, R/o Village Kanota, Tehsil Bassi, Distt. Jaipur.
126 Jeetu Pareek S/o Sh. Radha Kishan Pareek, Aged About 45
Years, R/o Plot No. 12 B, Krishna Nagar, Imli Phatak, Jaipur.
127 Laxmi Narayan Pipliwal S/o Sh. Panna Lal Raiger, Aged
About 45 Years, R/o 957/30, Bai Ji Ki Kothi, Jhalana
Doongri, Jaipur.
128 Ramji Lal Sharma S/o Sh. Radheshyam Sharma, Aged
About 43 Years, R/o Post Kuthara, Tehsil Bassi, Distt.
Jaipur.
129 Data Ram Dhakad S/o Sh. Gulab Chand, Aged About 43
Years, R/o Plot No. 92 Barah Mori, Ram Khol, Nahargarh
Road, Kile Ke Neeche, Bhrampuri, Jaipur.
130 Suresh Kumar Maurya S/o Sh. Ram Dhan, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Plot No. 86, Hasanpura, Jaipur.
131 Ajay Kumar Meena S/o Sh. Hanuman Sahay Meena, Aged
About 42 Years, R/o Village Benar, Tehsil Amer, Distt.
Jaipur.
132 Jaman Sahay S/o Sh. Kana Ram, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
Village Dehta, Post Palri, Tehsil Viratnagar, Jaipur.
133 Subhash Chand S/o Sh. Jamna Prasad, Aged About 57
Years, R/o 1057, Char Darwaja, Gangapole, Jaipur.
134 Bhanwar Lal Verma S/o Sh. Hanuman Prasad, Aged About
55 Years, R/o 1304, Gulab Bari, Uniyaron Ka Rasta,
Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur.
135 Mohan Lal Khinchi S/o Sh. Badri Narayan, Aged About 54
Years, R/o 210 Shivaji Nagar Shastri Nagar, Jaipur.
136 Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Bhagchand, Aged About 53 Years, R/o
Bai Ji Ki Kothi, Jhalana Dungri, Jaipur.
137 Devki Nandan Verma S/o Sh. Mangi Lal, Aged About 49
Years, R/o Raigaro Ka Bada Mohalla, Sanganer, Jaipur.
138 Ram Dev Khatik S/o Sh. Kajor Mal, Aged About 46 Years,
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (12 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
R/o 2, Mistri Nagar, Kartarpura, Mahesh Nagar, Ward No.
15, Jaipur.
139 Hanuman Sahay, S/o Sh., Aged About 56 Years, 3304,
Ghatgate, Raigron Ki Kothi, Jaipur.
140 Umesh Jain, S/o Sh. Kapoor Chand, Aged About 55 Years,
R/o 116/56, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur
141 Rakesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Gopi Lal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
A-47, Shivpuri Airport Road, Cheelgadi Restaurant Ke Pass,
Sanganer, Jaipur
142 Bhanwar Lal Sutrkar, S/o Sh. Sharwan Lal, Aged About 51
Years, R/o 84, Dr. Ambedkar Colony, Road, H.no. 1,
Ashokpura, Sodala, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
(2) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3815/2011
Sawan Kumar Son Of Shri Ram Charan, aged 30 years, 144,
Roop Nagar, Post Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Assistant Secretary To The
Government, Personnel (Kha-2) Department, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur
----Respondent
(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12905/2013
1. Behru Ram Gurjar S/o Shri Ramkaran Gurjar, aged about 25
years, resident of Village Jaloi, Post Rojada, Via Jhotwara, Tehsil
Amer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Ram Kunwar Gurjar son of Shri Rewadram Gurjar, aged about
24 years, resident of Village Kherwadi, Post Sevapura, Via Morija,
District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Kaluram Gurjar S/o Shri Rewadram Gurjar, aged about 28
years, resident of Village Kherwadi, Post Sevapura, Via Morija,
District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
4. Sunit Saini S/o Shri Babulal Saini, aged about 23 years,
resident of Morija Road, Behind Power House, Ward No. 29,
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (13 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
Chomu, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
5. Mukesh Kumar Gurjar S/o Shri Rajulal Gurjar, aged about 21
years, resident of Village & Post Begas, Via Bagru, District Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
6. Suman Saini D/o Shri Prakash Chand Saini, aged about 21
years, resident of Village Ghasipura, Dhani Railapuri Tan, Post
Kanwat, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Rajasthan).
7. Ramraj Gurjar S/o. Shri Ramchandra Gurjar, aged about 25
years, resident of Khedulya, Post Galod, Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1 State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2 The Assistant Principal Secretary, Department Of
Personnel (Kha-2), Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14822/2013
Ajay Singh S/o Shri Paramhans, aged about 29 years, resident of
Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, D.O.P.,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Dy. Secretary, D.O.P. (Kha-2), Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(5) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15633/2013
Akbar Mehndi S/o Shri M.H. Khan, aged about 35 years, resident
of 4720, Jagannath Shah Ka Rasta, Subhash Chowk, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (14 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department Of
Personnel, Govt. Secretraiat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(6) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20060/2013
1. Ravi Sharma S/o Shri Ganesh Narayan Sharma, aged about 27
years, R/o Village Luniyawas, Post Sewapura, Amer, District Jaipur
(Raj.)
2. Ramphool Gurjar S/o Shri Kishanram Gurjar, R/o Village
Hanumanpura, Post Sevapura, Via Morija, District Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Ram Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Gangaram Yadav, R/o Dhani Navodi,
VPO Rundal, Via Moriza, District Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1 State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2 The Assistant Principal Secretary, Department Of
Personnel (Kha-2), Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(7) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14884/2016
1 Ramnarayan S/o Shri Sukha, aged about 48 years, R/o Plot
No. 10, Sunita Colony, Rampura Road, Sanganer, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2 Sitaram Bairwa S/o Shri Bhura Lal Bairwa, aged about 41
years, R/o Village Hingonia, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1 State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2 Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur. Rajasthan.
3 Registrar, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (15 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
(8) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16420/2016
1 Harbal Saini S/o Shri Johari Lal Saini, aged about 35 years,
resident of Village And Post Golada, Tehsil Baswa, District
Dausa, Rajasthan.
2 Pappu Ram Saini Son Of Shri Lichhman Prasad Saini, aged
about 33 years, resident of 18-B, Govind Vihar Vistar,
Gurjar Ki Thadi, Jaipur, Rajasthan
3 Balbir Saini Son Of Shri Bholaram Saini, aged about 32
years, resident of Rajpurabada, Tehsil Rajgarh, District
Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1 The State Of Rajasthan Through The Chief Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.).
2 The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3 The Assistant Secretary, Department Of Personnel Group-
II, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
(9) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3456/2018
Pappu Lal Bairwa S/o Shri Mangal Ram, aged about 31
years, R/o Village Sameliya, Post Kisorpura, Tehsil Fagi,
District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1 The State Of Rajasthan Through its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2 The Joint Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3 The Assistant Secretary, Department Of Personnel Kha-2,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (16 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
For Petitioners : Mr. H.V. Nandwana Advocate with Mr.
Y.V. Nandwana Advocate, Mr.
Savyasachi Puri Advocate and Ms.
Yashsvi Sharma Advocate.
Mr. C.P. Sharma Advocate.
Mr. Tanveer Ahamed Advocate with Mr.
Iliyas Khan Advocate.
Mr. Bharat Yadav Advocate with Mr.
Akshay Yadav Advocate.
Mr. K.N. Sharma Advocate with Mr.
Vijay Choudhary Advocate.
Mr. Pradeep Singh Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Vigyan Shah Additional Advocate
General with Mr. Sankalp Singh
Advocate and Ms. Monisha Agarwal
Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
16/03/2026
1. This batch of writ petitions has been filed by the
petitioners invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the matters relating
to recruitment on the post of Class-IV Employees initiated vide
advertisement dated 31.12.2010. With the consent of parties, all
the writ petitions were heard together and are being decided by this
common judgment in following manner:
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15084/2016:
2. In this writ petition, petitioners have laid a challenge to
the provisional select list dated 14.10.2016 and the consequential
appointment orders dated 27.01.2017 issued for recruitment to the
posts of Class-IV Employees in the Government Secretariat, State of
Rajasthan. The petitioners have also sought consequential directions
for their appointment by grant of bonus marks and in the
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (17 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
alternative, they have prayed for regularisation of their services and
other ancillary reliefs.
3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners were engaged
between the years 2003 to 2008 as Class-IV Employees/Safai
Karmcharis in the Secretariat through contractors on daily wage
basis. It is their case that they have continuously worked for long
durations and have been discharging duties identical to those
performed by regularly appointed Class-IV Employees. Experience
certificates dated 18.04.2013 were issued to them by the
competent authorities showing their period of engagement.
4. The State Government issued an advertisement dated
15.01.2011 (revised subsequently) for recruitment to Class-IV
Employees posts. The petitioners, being eligible, applied and
appeared in the interview process. It is the grievance of the
petitioners that despite having more than five years of experience,
they were not granted bonus marks as per the Cabinet decision
dated 19.02.2013/01.03.2013 and the directions flowing from
earlier litigation culminating in the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court dated 03.08.2016. Consequently, their names did
not find place in the provisional select list dated 14.10.2016.
5. It is further pleaded that similarly situated persons were
granted bonus marks for having experience of the similar nature
qua the petitioners and by virtue of getting bonus marks, they were
appointed on the post of Class-IV Employees, whereas the
petitioners were denied such benefit on the ground that they were
not parties to earlier litigation or that their service record was not
available, which according to them is arbitrary and discriminatory.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (18 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
The petitioners have also placed reliance on subsequent
developments, including police investigation confirming the
genuineness of their experience certificates and have asserted that
they continue to work even as on date through contractors.
6. Replies to the writ petitions have been filing by the
respondents to oppose the writ petitions, contending therein that
the recruitment process was conducted strictly in accordance with
the applicable rules and the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
on the basis of settlement between the employees union/
individuals and the respondent-Government. It is contended that
bonus marks were awarded only to those candidates, who were
parties to the earlier litigation and fulfilled the criteria laid down
pursuant to the Cabinet decision, i.e., completion of requisite years
of service as on the date of advertisement and availability of
supporting official record.
7. It is further asserted in reply to the writ petition that the
petitioners were not granted bonus marks as there was no verifiable
official record available in the Secretariat regarding their continuous
service and the experience certificates relied upon by them were not
issued from official records. The respondents have denied any
arbitrariness or discrimination and contended that the selection
process has attained finality, appointments have already been
made, therefore, no interference is warranted at this belated stage.
8. Mr. Harsh Vardhan Nandwana, learned counsel for the
petitioners vehemently argued that the denial of bonus marks to the
petitioners is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that the
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (19 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
petitioners are similarly situated to other daily wage employees who
were granted bonus marks, appointed and merely because the
petitioners were not parties to earlier litigation, they cannot be
denied equal treatment.
9. It was further argued that the experience certificates
issued to the petitioners have been found to be genuine in police
investigation and, therefore, the stand of the respondents is
untenable. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners have
rendered long years of service and are entitled to regularisation in
light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. Per contra, Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the respondents submitted that the selection
process was completed in compliance with the directions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and in accordance with the criteria uniformly
applied to all candidates. It was argued that bonus marks could be
granted only upon verification of official records, which were not
available in the case of the petitioners. It was further contended
that the petitioners participated in the selection process without
protest and they are now estopped from challenging the same after
declaration of result and issuance of appointments. It was also
urged that interference at this stage would unsettle the entire
selection.
11. This Court has considered the rival submissions and
perused the material available on record.
12. The petitioners have placed heavy reliance on the
judgments earlier delivered by this court as well as Hon'ble
Supreme Court and on the Cabinet decision taken by the
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (20 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
respondents to grant weightage of the work experience to the
similarly situated persons. This Court carefully examined the earlier
judgments and found that one Vinod Kumar and so many other
individuals filed D.B. Civil writ petitions no. 9836/2002, 2655/2001,
5188/1999 and 717/2000, whereas Sachivalaya Dainik Vetanbhogi
Karamchari Union, Jaipur also filed D.B. Civil Writ petition no.
4261/1999 before the Division Bench of this court. Admittedly,
petitioners were not parties to the aforesaid writ petitions, nor have
they pleaded that they were members of aforesaid Employees
Union. During the pendency of aforesaid writ petition, a settlement
took place between the petitioners in the above referred writ
petitions and the State Government. In view of the settlement
following order dated 28.01.2003 was passed by the Division
Bench:
"Learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties
have settled the matter and the terms of settlement have
been reduced in to writing. The learned counsel for the parties
have presented the same before us for being kept on record
and for passing appropriate directions.
Having regard to the terms of settlement, we direct as
follows:-
(1). As per condition No. 4 of the conditions of Tender, it
would be incumbent upon the contractor (New Contractor) to
continue with the services of the existing employees
(petitioners) upon the award of the contract to him subject to
their identity being verified and subject also to verification of
their suitability.
(2). In the event of the Government making regular selections
for the vacant posts of Farrash/Sweeper/Class IV/Helper etc.
the petitioners shall be given weightage as well as relaxation
in eligibility condition keeping in view their long duration of
past services subject to their satisfactory performance.
(3). Subject to the giving of weightage and relaxation in the
eligibility condition, the petitioners will have to compete with
others. In case, the Government intends to make regular
selections on the vacant posts of Farrash/Sweeper/Class
IV/Helper etc. and
(4). In case, the petitioners make applications or file
representation before the Government, requesting it to grant
benefit of Circular No. F.1(s) FD/Rules/2002 dated 13.01.2003
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (21 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
to them the same shall be considered by the Government
within a reasonable period of time. Any decision taken by the
Government on the applications or representations of the
petitioners shall be binding on the contractor(s).
Both the parties have agreed to the passing of the
aforesaid directions.
Keeping in view the directions issued by us and the
settlement arrived at between the parties, the petitioners wish
to withdraw the writ petitions.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed to be
withdrawn. The withdrawal of these writ petitions however,
will not affect the directions contained in the order and the
department will be free to call for fresh tenders.
The writ petitions stand disposed of."
13. Pursuant to aforesaid order dated 28.01.2003, following
Cabinet decision dated 19.02.2013/01.03.2013 was taken by the
respondent-Government:
"jktLFkku ljdkj
dkfeZd ¼[k&2½ foHkkx
dzekad% i-1¼2½dkfeZd@[k&@2009 t;iqj] fnukad% 19-02-2013
01-03-2013
ea=he.My Kkiu
fo"k; %& 'kklu lfpoky; esa prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dk dk;Z dj jgs Bsdk Jfedkas dks
fu;qfDr dh ik=rk 'krksZa esa f'kfFkyu ds laca/k esaA
-----------
1- ‘kklu lfpoky; esa 289 prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkfj;ksa ds fjDr inksa ij HkrhZ gsrq fnukad
15-01-2011 dks foKkiu tkjh fd;k x;kA bu inksa dks lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls Hkjs tkus
dk fu.kZ; eq[; lfpo egksn; ds Lrj ls fnukad 23-11-2012 dks fy;k x;kA
2- ‘kklu lfpoky; esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa nk;j fjV ;kfpdk la- Mhch flfoy
fjV ihfV’ku ua 5188@1999] 4261@1999] 717@2000] 3235@2004] 2655@2001
¼ds;j Vsdj½] 6938@2002 ,oa 9836@2002 esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 28-01-2003 dh
ikyuk esa igys ls 200 BsdkJfed dk;Zjr gSA bu Bsdksa Jfedksa esa ls fu/kkZfjr vk;qlhek
ls vf/kd vk;q ds BsdkJfedksa dks vk;qlhek esa NwV fn;s tkus ds i’pkr gh fu;qfDr
fn;k tkuk laHko gSA ekuuh; U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; fnukad 28-01-2003] 04-09-03 ,oa 16-
11-06 ifjf’k”B ^^d^^ ^^[k^^ ^^x^^ layXu gSA
3- mDr iwoZ ls dk;Zjr Bsdk Jfedksa dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds mDr fu.kZ;kuqlkj
gVk;k tkuk laHko ugha gS rFkk mDr fu;qfDr esa vk;qlhek esa NwV ,oa vuqHko ds vk/kkj
ij ossVst fn;k tkuk gSA orZeku esa lacf/kr fo|eku fu;eksa esa vuqlwfpr
tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr@ vU; fiNM+h tkfr ,oa efgykvksas dks vk;qlhek esa 5 ,oa 10
o”kZ dh NwV nsus dk izko/kku gSA blls vf/kd vk;q lhek esa NwV dk orZeku fu;eksa esa
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (22 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
izko/kku ugha gSA vr% bu Bsdk dfeZ;ksa dks vk;q lhek esa f’kfFkyu dh fuEukuqlkj
vko’;drk gS%&
fnukad 01-01-2011 dks fu/kkZfjr vk;q ls Jfedksa dh la[;k
vf/kd dk oxZ
2 o”kZ rd 14
2 o”kZ ls vf/kd o 4 o”kZ rd 18
4 o”kZ ls vf/kd o 6 o”kZ rd 06
6 o”kZ ls vf/kd o 8 o”kZ rd 13
8 o”kZ ls vf/kd o 10 o”kZ rd 13
10 o”kZ ls vf/kd o 20 o”kZ rd 12
dqy 76
vr% mDr BsdkJfedksa dk fu;qfDr gsrq vk;qlhek dh ik=rk esa fnukad 01-01-11 dks 02
o”kZ ls vf/kd o vf/kdre 20 o”kZ dh NwV fn;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA
4- prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkfj;ksa ds fjDr inksa ij HkrhZ gsrq lk{kkRdkj ds dqy 50 vad gksaxsA
buesa ls mDRk iwoZ ls dk;Zjr BsdkJfedksa dks mudh yEch vof/k ds vuqHko dks ns[krs
gq, ftu Bsdk Jfedksa us 5 o”kZ rd ‘kklu lfpoky; esa dk;Z fd;k gS mudks 5 cksul
vad ,oa ftu Bsdk Jfedksa us 5 o”kZ ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gS mudks 10 cksul vad fn;k
tkuk izLrkfor gSA
5- mDr izdj.k ij ekuuh; eq[; lfpo egksn; ,oa ekuuh; eq[;ea=h egksn; dk
vuqeksnu izkIr dj fy;k x;k gS ifjf’k”V ^^?k^^A vkKkid vuqlwph ifjf’k”V ^^M^^ ij
miyC/k gSA
vr% ‘kklu lfpoky; esa prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dk dk;Z dj jgs BsdkJfedksa dks fu;qfDr
dh vk;qlhek dh ik=rk ‘krZ esa f’kfFkyu ,oa fu;qfDr gsrq lk{kkRdkj esa cksul vad fn;s
tkus dh Lohd`fr ds laca/k esa izLrko ea=he.My ds le{k tfj;s ljD;wys’ku
fopkjkFkZ@vuqeksnukFkZ izLrqr gSA
Sd/-
izeq[k ‘kklu lfpo
dkfeZd foHkkx”
14. However, in the meanwhile, when the State Government
took actions contrary to the aforesaid order dated 28.01.2003
passed by the Division Bench, Sachivalaya Dainik Vetanbhogi
Karamchari Union and other individuals, who were parties to the
earlier litigation, filed S.B. Civil Writ petitions no. 3235/2004,
8722/2005 and 4728/2006. During the pendency of the above writ
petitions, the respondents also advertised 289 vacancies of the
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (23 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]Class IV Employees vide advertisement dated 15.01.2011 for
regular appointment. It was submitted that in compliance of earlier
order dated 28.01.2003, the respondents were under an obligation
to given weightage to the petitioners in the said cases by way of
grant of 5 bonus marks in proportion to the services rendered by
the respective petitioners and even the proposal in this regard was
approved by the State Cabinet, hence, in view of above, S. B. Civil
Writ petitions No. 3235/2004, 8722/2005 and 4728/2006 were
decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
21.07.2014, with following observations and directions:
“It is indeed pity that the petitioners, who have been working
with the respondent-State through contractors, are waiting of
regular appointments since 1998 and in this hope, they have
completed more than fifteen years of service with the
respondents on contract basis through contractors on payment
of a very meagre amount, which at present is Rs. 166/- per
day. The petitioners, were earlier being paid through the
contractors and from 2006 onwards, under the order of the
Government, they are being paid through the Government.
Presently, they are being paid on daily wages rate payable to
a skilled labour, which is Rs. 166/- per day. Even this amount
is not paid whenever it is a non working day/holiday. All the
petitioners are in their late 30s and some in early forties. They
have responsibility of maintaining large families. The decision
of the Government to grant them benefit of bonus marks has
its roots in the decision of this Court dated 28.01.2003 passed
in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners wherein as
per Clause (2) and (3) of the settlement arrived at the
between the petitioners and the Government, it was agreed
that in the event of the Government making regular selection
for the vacant posts of Farrash/Sweeper/Class IV/Helper etc.
the petitioners shall be given weightage as well as relaxation
in the eligibility condition keeping in view their long duration of
past services subject to their satisfactory performance. And for
this purpose, the petitioners will have to compete with others.
It was with a view to giving effect to aforesaid
decision/settlement that the respondents devised method of
giving bonus marks. They decided to give five bonus marks to
such of the contractual class IV employees who have
completed five years of service and ten bonus marks to those
who have completed more than five years of service. Even
those four petitioners, namely Chhotelal, Harbal, Babu Lal and
Balveer Singh, who have completed eight years of services,
would yet be entitled to same bonus marks at par with others,
who have not been discontinued, i.e. ten bonus marks. On
particularly query made by the Court, Mr. Kailash Chandra
Kumawat, Officer-in-charge has informed that the challenge to
the Division Bench decision of this Court has been made by
the Government and not by the private litigants, which would
mean that the Government has approached the Hon’ble(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (24 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]Supreme Court defending its decision to award 30 bonus
marks. This only fortifies the claim of the petitioners because
the bonus marks which are being granted to them were
because of the solemn understanding of the Government given
to this Court in the settlement arrived at between the
petitioners and the Government. The Government possibly
now cannot go back upon their stand and is under obligation
to give effect to aforesaid settlement. In fact, the case of the
petitioners has to be taken on different footings and not to be
linked with other matter, which is subject matter of challenge
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Grant of bonus marks to
the petitioners has got independent approval from the State
Cabinet. The Government ought to, therefore, go ahead with
the finalization of the process of selection by declaring the
result.
In view of above, present writ petitions succeed and are
allowed. The respondents are directed to declare the result by
awarding bonus marks to the petitioners as per their decision
and pass appropriate orders of appointment of selected
candidates within a period of two months from the date copy
of this order is produced before them.”
15. Judgment dated 21.07.2014 was further challenged by
the State of Rajasthan by of filing as many as three intra court
appeals led by D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1545/2014. The
aforesaid appeals were decided by the Division Bench of this court
vide judgment dated 27.11.2014, in following manner:
“12. We are of the view that the question of award of bonus
marks was entirely beyond the powers of adjudication of
learned Single Judge, inasmuch as, neither the selections were
challenged, nor any prayer was made to award bonus marks
to the petitioners. No such facts or prayer could be foreseen,
when the writ petition was filed, nor the writ petitions were
amended, bringing these facts on record.
13. The settlement dated 28.1.2003, was arrived at prior to
the filing of the writ petition. The entire object to file the writ
petition was to restrain the service providers to recommend
fresh names, or the names, excluding the petitioners. They
had claimed weightage to be given in pursuance to the
settlement dated 28.1.2003 in regular selections. The extent
of weightage, which may be given by the State Government,
was not provided in the settlement, nor the parties joined
issue on the point.
14. We do not propose to adjudicate over the percentage of
bonus marks. The State Government, may consider to give, or
may not give any weightage to the petitioners in the selections
or may adopt a principle that, all things being equal, the
person with experience may be preferred for employment. No
such matter could have been adjudicated by learned Single
Judge. We are also restraining ourselves from expressing any
opinion as to whether the award of bonus marks, after the
judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi
(supra), will be valid. In Supreme Court, an application has
been filed by the State of Rajasthan to withdraw the Special(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (25 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]Leave Petition. Learned Advocate General states that the
application is still pending.
15. Be that as it may, the question of weightage in regular
selections in accordance with law, may also depend upon
statutory Rules. We may also observe here, that the
settlement could not be enforced, in view of the conclusive
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of
Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (supra).
16. In view of the above discussion, the directions issued by
learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.
17. The Special Appeals are allowed. The judgment of learned
Single Judge is set aside.”
16. The aforesaid judgment dated 27.11.2014 was further
put to challenge by the above Employees Union and other aggrieved
persons by way of filing Special Leaves Petitions before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. After granting leave, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
decided Civil Appeals No. 7260/2016 and other two appeals vide
judgment dated 03.08.2016, with following findings and directions:
“The first respondent, who was a party to the
settlement recorded by the High Court in its order dated
28.01.2023 could not be permitted to raise the question of the
enforceability of the settlement, more particularly, when all
that the appellant seek is only weightage for the past service
of its members which the first respondent agreed, in principle,
to give to similarly situated persons working with other
departments. The members of the appellant Union have been
working with the first respondent for long periods (period
varying from person to person). Whether such employment
was regular or irregular in law, is a different matter. The fact
remains that, their services were used by the first
Respondent.
In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the
judgment under appeal cannot be sustained and the same is
set aside. The first respondent is directed to conclude the
recruitment process initiated and announce the results
forthwith preferably within a period of eight weeks from today.
We also make it clear that in terms of the settlement recorded
by the High Court in its order dated 28.1.2003, the members
of the appellant Union are also entitled for some weightage for
the past service rendered by them. The quantum or measure
of such weightage may be decided by the State in accordance
with a rational policy.
The appeal is allowed with costs quantified at Rs.2.5
lakhs.”
17. At the outset, it is to be noted that the admitted position
is that the petitioners in the presents cases have never been parties
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (26 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
to the above referred earlier litigation, nor were they members of
the Employees Union. It would be relevant to observe that the
genesis of all the above orders/ judgments passed by this Court,
Division Bench and the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the settlement,
which took place between the State Government and Employee
Union/ individuals who were parties to D.B. Civil writ Petitions No.
9836/2002, 2655/2001, 5188/1999, 717/2000 and 4261/1999.
Cabinet decision has also been taken pursuant to such settlement.
Subsequent litigations are species of the above referred settlement
and Cabinet decision. Thus, it cannot be said that at any point of
time, any judgment in rem was delivered either by this Court or by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, rather all the judgments/ orders passed
by the Courts and the consequential Cabinet decisions are mere
acknowledgment and implementation of the settlement. Since at no
point of time, rights of respective parties were ever tested or
adjudicated on the basis of any statutory rules in force, and earlier
judgments are rather based upon acceptance, recognition and
acknowledgment of settlement. All the courts have confined their
judgments to the petitioners in the said litigations and have not
given any general directions for benefit of others. Hence, under
these circumstances, the petitioners who were neither parties to
such settlement or in the earlier litigations, cannot claim any parity
in the matter qua the beneficiaries of the settlement, who were the
active parties in the above exercise. Therefore, the petitioners have
got no right to claim any bonus marks for the alleged experience of
work, due to not falling in the same class qua the others who were
parties to the earlier litigations and settlement.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (27 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
18. In addition to above, it is also significant to mention that
even otherwise in compliance of the above judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the selection process has been completed and
appointments have already been made and the appointed persons
have been working for several years. Even assuming that there was
some grievance with regard to non-grant of bonus marks to the
petitioners, this Court is not inclined to unsettle a concluded
selection process after such a long lapse of time. Interference at
this stage would not only prejudice the rights of third-party
appointees, but would also disrupt administrative stability. It is a
settled principle of law that Courts ought to be slow in interfering
with completed selections, particularly when the selected candidates
are not shown to have been guilty of any fraud or illegality.
19. Further, the petitioners admittedly participated in the
selection process with full knowledge of the criteria and cannot be
permitted to turn around and challenge the same after being
unsuccessful. The doctrine of acquiescence and estoppel would
operate against them in such circumstances.
20. In view of the aforesaid, the prayers seeking quashing of
the select list dated 14.10.2016 and consequential appointment
orders dated 27.01.2017, as well as relief of grant of appointment
to the petitioners, cannot be accepted and are liable to be rejected.
21. However, the matter does not end here. It is an admitted
position on record that the petitioners have been working for a
considerable length of time, in some cases exceeding 15 to 20
years, albeit through contractors and are continuing even as on
date. The material placed on record, including wage registers and
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (28 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
other documents, prima facie indicates long and continuous
engagement of the petitioners.
22. The issue of regularisation of long-serving daily
wage/contractual employees has been considered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in catena of judgments. Reference of some of such
judgments has been given by this Court in its earlier judgment
dated 19.01.2026 rendered in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya vs
Dhanraj Choudhary & Another (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.
2417/2003 & other connected petitions), in the following
manner:
“31. The jurisprudence on regularization has evolved
through a series of authoritative pronouncements of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Secretary, State of Karnataka
(supra), the Constitution Bench held that regularization is not
a mode of recruitment and illegal appointments made in
contravention of Articles 14 and 16 cannot be regularized as a
matter of right. The primary concern of the Apex Court was to
prevent backdoor entry into public service. At the same time,
the Court carved out a significant exception permitting one-
time regularization of employees who had rendered ten years
or more of continuous service against sanctioned posts,
possessed requisite qualifications, and whose appointments
were not illegal but merely irregular.
32. The contours of this exception were clarified in
State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors. reported
in (2010) 9 SCC 247, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that the exception carved out in Umadevi (supra) must
be applied in a purposive and pragmatic manner. The Court
emphasized that the benefit of regularization cannot be denied
on hyper-technical grounds or due to the failure of the State
to undertake the one-time exercise contemplated in Umadevi
(supra). Administrative delay or inaction, it was held, cannot
operate to the prejudice of long-serving employees.
33. In State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh &
Ors. reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148, although the issue
directly pertained to pay parity, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reinforced the doctrine of dignity of labour and held that
extraction of identical work from temporary or daily-wage
employees while denying them equal remuneration amounts
to exploitation and violates Article 14. This judgment infused
substantive equality into service jurisprudence and laid the
groundwork for later decisions addressing prolonged ad-
hocism.
34. The recent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court further develop this jurisprudence. In Jaggo Vs. Union
of India & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, the
Court held that mere nomenclature such as “temporary” or
“contractual” cannot defeat substantive rights where the
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (29 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
employee performs duties that are perennial and essential to
the functioning of the establishment. The Court categorically
held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be invoked as a shield to
perpetuate exploitative arrangements and that prolonged
continuation itself creates an obligation on the employer to
rationalize or regularize the engagement.
35. In Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. &
Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, the Apex Court
held that the State, as a constitutional and model employer,
cannot extract regular work from ad hoc or daily-wage
employees without sanctioning posts or initiating regular
recruitment. Prolonged ad-hocism was held to be violative of
Articles 14, 16 and 21, and executive inaction in creating posts
or undertaking recruitment was held to be subject to judicial
review.
36. Similarly, in Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam,
Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that employees performing
essential civic duties on a continuous basis cannot be left in a
state of perpetual insecurity. The Court directed reinstatement
and mandated initiation of a fair, transparent and time-bound
process for regularization, reiterating that perennial public
duties cannot be discharged through endless temporary
arrangements.
37. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid judgments
demonstrates that while Umadevi (supra) continues to
prohibit regularization of illegal appointments, it does not
authorize the State to perpetuate ad-hocism, avoid creation of
posts, or exploit labour under the guise of constitutional
compliance. The focus has decisively shifted from the form of
appointment to the substance of employment, namely the
nature of duties, length of service, existence of sanctioned
work, and the conduct of the employer.
38. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of
the present case, this Court finds that the workmen have
rendered long and uninterrupted service, possesses the
requisite qualifications, and have performed duties of a
perennial and essential nature under the direct control of the
employer. The employer has failed to demonstrate that the
workmen’ engagement was illegal or tainted by fraud. The
continued engagement of the workmen without initiating
regular recruitment or considering regularization reflects
administrative arbitrariness and is contrary to the
constitutional obligation of the State to act as a model
employer.
39. The refusal to regularize the workmen, viewed in
the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the cases of Jaggo (supra), Dharam Singh (supra) and
Shripal (supra), cannot be sustained. To permit the
employer to continue such an arrangement would amount to
endorsing exploitation and would defeat the constitutional
guarantee of fairness, equality and dignity of labour.”
23. In light of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements,
this Court is of the considered view that while the petitioners cannot
be granted the primary relief of appointment by disturbing the
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (30 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
concluded selection, however, their claim for regularisation cannot
be brushed aside.
24. Accordingly, writ petition is partly allowed in the following
terms:
(i) The prayers of the petitioners seeking quashing of the provisional
select list dated 14.10.2016 and consequential appointment orders
dated 27.01.2017, as well as for grant of appointment pursuant
thereto, are hereby rejected.
(ii) The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the
petitioners for regularisation/appropriate absorption, strictly in
accordance with law, keeping in view the principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jaggo Vs. Union of India
& Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar
Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 and Dharam
Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1735 as well as other applicable precedents.
(iii) The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken by the respondents
within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order.
(iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion
on the merits of individual claims and the respondents shall take an
appropriate decision in accordance with law.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3815/2011:
25. Petitioner, who is member of Scheduled Caste category,
has challenged advertisement dated 31.12.2010, on the ground that
although it is mandatory to give reservation to the members of SC
category, however, in advertisement dated 31.12.2010, not a single
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (31 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
vacancy of SC category was advertised, which is in violation of
reservation policy. Hence, the petitioner has prayed for quashing
the advertisement along with entire selection process initiated
pursuant thereto.
26. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the
respondents and in para 4 of the reply, the respondents have given
entire details with regard to total cadre strength of Class IV
employees in Government Secretariat alongwith number of posts
reserved for SC categories. By giving the details of fitment, a
categorical statement has been given in the reply that since SC
category was sufficiently being represented and there was no
vacancy meant for SC category, therefore, there was no
requirement to advertise any vacancy for the reserved category in
the advertisement.
27. No rejoinder to the reply was filed to controvert the
above factual statement.
28. Hence, in the light of categorical reply, this Court is
satisfied that there was no violation of reservation policy in the
impugned recruitment process. Therefore, the writ petition filed by
the petitioner is devoid of any merit and substance and the same is
hereby dismissed.
S. B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 12905/2013, 20060/2013 &
14822/2013:
29. In the above writ petitions, the petitioners have
challenged the whole selection process conducted pursuant to
advertisements dated 31.12.2010 and 29.01.2011 and sought a
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (32 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
direction to again conduct interviews pursuant to aforesaid
advertisement by adopting a transparent process.
30. During arguments, Mr. C.P. Sharma, learned counsel for
the petitioners emphasised that the entire process pursuant to
impugned advertisements was opaque, as no criteria was laid down
for conducting interviews. Learned counsel submitted that as many
as 1,46,156 candidates appeared for interviews against the
advertised vacancies, however, the entire process was conducted
within a few days, which was practically impossible. In fact, the
interview was simply an eye wash. No question with regard to
qualification of the respective candidate, nature of work & duties as
well as his capability to carry out the work was asked. Even the
respective candidates were not informed about the marks obtained
by them.
31. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioners that
although the rules governing the recruitment process do not
prescribe for granting any weightage to any of the candidate, yet
bonus marks were granted to some of the candidates on the basis
of their experience of working on contract basis, which allowed such
beneficiaries to steal a march over the other open market
candidates. Hence, having conducted the entire process against the
statutory rules, serious illegalities have been committed by the
respondents and the entire process deserves to be quashed.
32. The allegation levelled in the above writ petitions have
been emphatically denied by the respondents in the writ petition.
Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned Additional Advocate General submitted
that the entire process was conducted in a transparent manner.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (33 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
Each and every candidate was granted reasonable time during
interviews. Duration of the interview depends upon the nature of
the work and skill attached to the post. The process in question was
carried out for Class IV Employees, hence, looking to the required
qualification and required level of IQ of the candidates appearing in
the interview, questions correlating to the above factors were asked
from the candidates by the Interview Committee.
33. As regards the allegation of granting weightage to the
work experience to some of the candidates, it was submitted by
learned Additional Advocate General that weightage in the form of
bonus marks has been given pursuant to earlier settlement between
employees union/ individuals with the respondent-Government,
which has duly been recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
hence, there is no illegality in the entire process.
34. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court
after perusing the record, finds merit in the submission of learned
Additional Advocate General that interviews for the higher posts
cannot be compared with the interviews of the post of Class-IV
Employee, which is lowest in the ladder. There cannot be standard
formula for questions to be asked during interviews and for fixing
minimum duration of time for conducting interviews. Such factor is
bound to be left to the discretion and expertise of the Interview
Committee. Hence, the allegations levelled by the petitioners are
baseless and unfounded, and are liable to be rejected at the outset.
35. So far as the necessity of awarding bonus marks and to
whom such weightage was to be given, detail analysis has already
been made by this Court in this very judgment while deciding S.B.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (34 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
Civil Writ Petition No. 15084/2016, which is equally applicable in the
instant case also. Since bonus marks have been awarded pursuant
to settlement, Cabinet decision and judgments of this Court as well
as of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, hence, no illegality can be found
in the impugned process on this basis.
36. Consequently, all the above writ petitions filed by the
petitioners are devoid of any merit and substance and the same are
hereby dismissed.
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15633/2013:
37. Petitioner in the above writ petition has come out with a
case that despite the fact that the petitioner submitted application
form pursuant to advertisement issued by the respondents for
appointment on the posts of Class IV Employee and he fulfilled all
the conditions of eligibility, he was not called for interview, which
deprived him of his legitimate rights of appointment.
38. Such allegations have been emphatically denied by the
respondents at the threshold in the reply to the writ petition by
submitting that the petitioner was called for interview and even
interview call letter has also been placed on record as Annexure-R/1
along with reply.
39. No rejoinder to the reply was filed to rebut the above
factual statement.
40. Hence, in the light of specific reply, it is evident that the
writ petition has been filed with incorrect facts, which are against
the record. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
hereby dismissed.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (35 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14884/2016, 3456/2018:
41. By way of filing the above writ petitions, the petitioners
have asserted that although they were working on contractual basis
alike other persons and were entitled for bonus marks as granted to
others, yet the petitioners have been deprived of such weightage,
which has caused hostile discrimination with the petitioners and has
curtailed their right to be appointed on the post of Class IV
Employee, hence, they have prayed for including their names also in
the order of appointed candidates dated 14.10.2016.
42. As question of awarding bonus marks and to whom such
weightage was to be given, detail discussion has already been done
by this Court earlier in this very judgment while deciding S. B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 15084/2016, which is equally applicable in the
instant case also. Since bonus marks have been awarded pursuant
to settlement, Cabinet decision and judgments of this Court as well
as of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and admitted position is that the
petitioners in the presents cases have never been parties to the
above referred earlier litigations, nor were they members of the
Employees Union, hence, no illegality can be found in the impugned
process on this basis.
43. Accordingly, writ petitions filed by the petitioners are
dismissed.
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16420/2016:
44. In this writ petition, the petitioners have come out with
a case they were working on contractual basis alike other persons
and admitted position is that the petitioners in the presents cases
were also parties to the above referred earlier litigation and were
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12389] (36 of 36) [CW-15084/2016]
entitled for bonus marks as granted to others, yet the petitioners
have been deprived of such weightage, which has caused hostile
discrimination with the petitioners and has curtailed their right to be
appointed on the post of Class IV Employee. Hence, they have
prayed for a direction to appoint them also on the said post with
consequential benefits.
45. Reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the
respondents contending therein that merely working in the earlier
years was not sufficient and on the date of consideration, since the
petitioners were not continuing on the contractual post, therefore,
they have not been awarded any bonus marks.
46. This Court finds that the aforesaid criteria for awarding
bonus marks only to the candidates, who were actually working on
the relevant date of consideration cannot be said to be either
arbitrary or irrational, the denial of bonus marks to the petitioners is
totally justified. Hence, no illegality can be found in the impugned
process on this basis.
47. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is
dismissed.
48. Interim applications, if any pending in any of the writ
petitions, stand disposed of.
49. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on
record of each connected writ petition.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
MANOJ NARWANI /50-58
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:32:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:55:12 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)