Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sumera Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ... on 1 May, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:21318]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR

                        S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12662/2013

    Sumera Ram S/o Sh. Chuna Ram, aged about 32 years, resident
    of Balesar, Distt. Jodhpur.

                                                                               ----Petitioner
                                                   Versus
    1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
    Social Justice, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
    2. The Dy. Director, Social Justice Department, Jaipur.
    3. The Hostel Superintendent, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Government
    Hostel, Balesar, Distt. Jodhpur.
                                                                             ----Respondents
                                    With Connected matters1



For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit, Mr. Mukesh Vyas, Mr. Prakash Raika,
Mr. K.R. Meghwal, Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit, Mr. Rajendra
Katariya, Mr. Ankur Mathur, Mr. Sridhar Mehta, Mr.Vinit
Sanadhya, Mr. Priyanshu Gopa, Mr. A.A. Sharma, Mr.Jitendra
Marothia, Mr. A.K. Aggarwal, Mr. L.K. Khatri, Mr.Awar Dan
Ujjwal, Mr. Harish Purohit, Mr. Sushil Solanki, Mr.Mahipal
Rajpurohit, Mr. Bharat Singh Rathore, Mr. Pankaj Choudhary

For Respondent(s):

Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General assisted by Mr. A.S.
Shekhawat, Mr. I.R. Choudhary, Addl. Advocate General,
Mr.Kuldeep Vaishnav, Dy. G.C., Mr. Pawan Bharti, Mr. B.L.
Bhati, Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. Deepak Chandak,
AAAG, Dr. Praveen Khandelwal - AAG, Ms. Yashvi Khandelwal,
Ms. Neelam Sharma, AGC, Ms. Rakhi Choudhary, Dy. G.C.,
Mr.Deepak Vaishnav, Mr. N.K. Mehta, Dy. G.C., Mr. Vaibhav
Bang

Amicus Curiae:
Mr. Rajvendra Saraswat, Mr. Manvendra Singh assisted by
Ms.Saumya Choudhary, Ms. Ananya Rathore


                      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral)

1 As tabulated in para 2 of instant order.

[2025:RJ-JD:21318] (2 of 10) [CW-12662/2013]

Reserved on 19.02.2025 (two petitions reserved on 20.02.2025)

Pronounced on 01/05/2025

1. Petitioners were appointed/employed on various Class-III &

IV posts. They are continuing in service since their respective

appointments. However, their services have not been regularized.

Hence they seek directions to the respondents to regularize their

services and grant consequential benefits.

2. Following tables show initial dates of appointments of

petitioners and their respective posts:-

Table-(1) - Pertaining to CLASS-IV Employees (reserved on 19.02.2025)

Sr. No. CWP No. Petitioners Appointed Post Office/Department names on

1. 12662/2013 Sumera Ram 01.11.1995 Cook Department of Social Justice

2. 8314/2016 Tola Ram 27.11.1990 Cook Department of Social Justice, Pali

3. 10768/2016 Narayan 1993 Cook Govt. Scheduled Katara Caste Girls Hostel, Dungarpur

4. 15272/2016 Rajendra 20.07.1998 Watchman Department of Kumar Social Welfare, Hanumangarh

5. 5901/2019 Manju Devi 1989 Safai CPWD, Mount Abu Karamchari

6. 14756/2024 Giradhari 1995 & Security Department of Lal & 4 1996 Guard Social Justice, others cum Cook Barmer, Jaipur, Dausa, Ganganagar

7. 1332/2025 Khemraj 14.07.2014 Chowkidar Assistant Director, Garg @ & Social Welfare Khimraj 01.07.2011 Department, Pali & Garg & Anr Bundi

8. 3260/2025 Bhanwar Lal Oct, 2009 & Class-IV Department of & Anr. Aug, 2004 Social Justice, Udaipur

Table-(2) - Pertaining to CLASS-III Employees (reserved on 19.02.2025)

Sr. No. CWP No. Petitioners Appointed Post Office/Department names on

1. 3575/2014 Ravinder 30.04.1997 Driver Swami Keshwanand Singh Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner

2. 7310/2009 Murai Lal 20.01.1988 Technical Agriculture

[2025:RJ-JD:21318] (3 of 10) [CW-12662/2013]

Gupta Assistant (Civil) University, Bikaner

Table-(3) - Pertaining to CLASS-IV Employees (reserved on 20.02.2025)

Sr. No. CWP No. Petitioners Appointed Post Office/Department names on 1 505/2015 Ram Lal 1990 to Sales Man Raj. State Dewasi & 1998 Ganganagar Sugar Ors. Mills Ltd.

       2              4739/2025      Shivlal & 2   13.09.1990      Ward Boy       Medical & Health,
                                        Ors.       25.09.1996                           Pali

3. Vide a judgment dated 29.04.2025 rendered by this very

Bench in the case titled Giriraj Prasad Sharma Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7603/2023,

similar controversy has already been adjudicated. The reasons

and discussion therein be read as part and parcel of the instant

order and the same are not being repeated for the sake of brevity.

Relevant extract thereof, is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"CONCLUSION

17. To sum up, the constitutional ethos mandate not merely procedural fairness but substantive justice. In a welfare State, the prolonged denial of regularization despite continuous service for decades borders on institutional exploitation, which ought not to be countenanced. The delay in implementing the directions of the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi by over three years (from April 2006 to July 2009) is a gross administrative default. Penalizing employees for this governmental inaction would amount to travesty of justice. Let it be reiterated -- a failure to strictly follow procedure in an otherwise valid and sanctioned appointment does not render the appointment illegal. Blurring this distinction undermines the very spirit of Uma Devi and subsequent jurisprudence. The doctrine of legitimate expectation, well- recognized in administrative law, is clearly attracted. The petitioners, by virtue of decades of continuous service and recurring official assurances or circulars, had a legitimate expectation of being considered for regularization. A denial thereof not only defeats fairness but shakes trust in State's conduct. Apart there from, denial of regularization to persons who are similarly situated as those already regularized is a blatant infringement of the equality clause under Article 14, and continued exploitation of services without security undermines Article 21, which guarantees dignity of life.

18.1. The State should, in fact, also constitute a Monitoring Committee to oversee compliance with this judgment. This exercise is not intended to create a precedent for future appointments through irregular means.

[2025:RJ-JD:21318] (4 of 10) [CW-12662/2013]

It is a one-time corrective measure arising from prolonged systemic inertia and continued service rendered by the petitioners. The repeated misuse of Uma Devi judgment to justify denial of justice to deserving employees reflects either a fundamental misunderstanding or a wilful subversion of judicial dicta. This Court cautions against such misuse in future and directs legal sensitization of departmental heads on the correct application of service law jurisprudence.

18.2. At the cost of repetition, it is clarified that the doctrine of legitimate expectation, read with the mandate of Articles 14 and 21, demands that employees who have rendered decades of loyal, uninterrupted service--not through backdoor entry but through sanctioned roles--must not be kept hostage to bureaucratic apathy. Procedural rigidity cannot override substantive justice, especially when it threatens to convert long-serving human beings into expendable tools.

RELIEF:

19. Reverting to the Apex Court judgments referred above and in the light of foregoing discussion, I am of the opinion that in present case, the following approach is required qua the persons whose initial appointments were though irregular but not illegal:-

(A). Petitioners (excluding those whose services were hired on contractual basis for the limited period State Government Projects/Schemes and External Aided Projects), whose initial appointments though irregular but were not illegal (including those who were originally engaged on ad-hoc and part-time terms and those to whom no formal appointment letters were issued) and had completed ten years' service before or on 08.7.2009 but not under cover of orders of the Courts or Tribunals ought to be regularized from their respective dates of completion of ten years' service;

(B). To the extent of requirement of vacancies, the respondents shall have to take necessary and appropriate measures. More of it in later part.

20. Persons who had less than 10 years of service as on 08.07.2009 are not eligible under the regularization formula outlined above. Accordingly, it is both necessary and appropriate to first examine the claims of those whose initial appointments were illegal, so that the former cases may be assessed in the correct legal and administrative framework.

21. In Uma Devi (supra), while dealing with the claims of persons whose initial appointments were illegal, Supreme Court had directed that regular recruitments be undertaken to fill those vacant posts allowing the persons, whose initial appointments were illegal, to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for a significant period of time.

[2025:RJ-JD:21318] (5 of 10) [CW-12662/2013]

22. In this context, reference may be had to Rule 20 sub-rules (1) and (2) of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring of Civil Posts Rules, 2022 which reads as under:-

"xx xxx

20. Screening. - (1) if any specific contractual post of the any scheme/project of the Government is converted into regular post and included in any service, the person working on that contractual post and who have completed five years satisfactory service shall be screened for adjudging their suitability on the post by the screening committee consisting of,-

(i) Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Chairman Secretary/Secretary of the Adminis-

trative Department;

(ii) Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Member Secretary/Secretary of the Finance Department or his nominee not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government;

(iii) Principal Secretary / Secretary of Member the Department of Personnel or his nominee not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Govern-

                   ment, and

      (iv)         Head of the Department                                    Member-
                                                                             Secretary

       (2)     Experience of the past service of the persons working on the

posts so created on contract basis prior to the commencement of these rules, shall be given a weightage of one year for every completed three years of service.

Example :

S.No. Completed years of contractual service Weightage in years

[2025:RJ-JD:21318] (6 of 10) [CW-12662/2013]

Note:- (i) The experience of completed of service shall be counted as on 1st April of the year. For the purpose of calculation of the weightage under this sub-rule, the fractions if any shall be ignored.

(ii) Experience required for appointment on contractual post shall not be counted for the purpose of this sub-rule."

23. Guided by the Rule above, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while making regular appointments, the same formula for weightage of experience is applied to non-contractual persons whose initial appointments were illegal.

24. Addressing now the claims of persons whose initial appointments were though irregular, but not illegal and who were short of 10 years service on 08.07.2009, even if marginally, owing to which they would not be covered by the above formula for regularization of services. Their appointments being only irregular, but being short of 10 years service on the cut off date, technically they would not get any weightage of experience given in terms of the judgment in Uma Devi supra as given to those whose initial appointments were wholly illegal. Thus, such irregularly appointed persons would be worse off than even those whose initial appointments were wholly illegal. That would be anamolous and unjust. In my opinion, while making regular appointments, such irregularly appointed persons who being short of 10 years serving on cut off date missed out on regularization, should at least get the benefit of weightage of experience as is proposed to be given to those whose initial appointments were wholly illegal by adopting same formula as given in Rule 20, ibid.

25. As an upshot, these petitions are disposed of holding that the respondents are bound to apply the parameters laid down in Uma Devi (supra) and identify the petitioners (excluding those whose services were hired on contractual basis for the limited period State Government Projects/Schemes and External Aided Projects), whose initial appointments though irregular but were not illegal (including those who were originally engaged on ad-hoc and part-time terms and those to whom no formal appointment letters were issued) and had completed ten years' service before or on 08.7.2009 but not under cover of orders of the Courts or Tribunals and issue orders regularizing their services from respective dates of completion of ten years' service with consequential benefits within six months from the receipt of web-print of this judgment and to pay the monetary benefits thereof within the next three months;

25.1. Likewise respondents shall also take necessary and appropriate measures within three months from the receipt of web-print of this judgment to the extent of requirement of vacancies for compliance of 25 above;

[2025:RJ-JD:21318] (7 of 10) [CW-12662/2013]

25.2. With reference to the parameters laid down in Uma Devi (supra), respondents shall also identify the petitioners (excluding those whose services were hired on contractual basis for the limited period State Government Projects/Schemes and External Aided Projects), whose initial appointments were illegal but are found ineligible to weightage for experience and waiver of age restriction and accordingly issue/communicate speaking orders to the concerned persons within four months from the receipt of web-print of this judgment;

25.3. It is also deemed appropriate that the respondents ought to take steps to issue/publish advertisement for regular recruitment to fill the available vacant posts in relevant categories allowing the persons whose initial appointments were either irregular or illegal, to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for recruitment and giving weightage for their having been engaged for a significant period of time as per formula in Rule 20 sub -rules (1) and (2) of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring of Civil Posts Rules, 2022 (excluding those whose services were hired on contractual basis for the limited period State Government Projects/Schemes and External Aided Projects unless otherwise eligible).

FINAL ORDER:

26. In view of the foregoing discussion, binding precedents of the Supreme Court, and the settled legal principles and also to undo long- standing administrative injustice by exercising writ jurisdiction, following specific directions are deemed necessary, to be implemented in rem:-

I. Regularization of Eligible Petitioners

(i) The State Government, through its Chief Secretary, shall carry a fresh exercise (regardless of rejection of earlier claims of regularization) to identify all petitioners and all such other employees (excluding those whose services were hired purely on a contractual basis for time-bound projects/schemes or through placement agencies), whose initial appointments were irregular but not illegal, and who had completed ten years of continuous service on or before 08.07.2009, without judicial intervention, and issue orders regularizing their services with effect from their respective dates of completing ten years' service.

(ii) Such regularization shall carry with it all consequential service benefits, including continuity of service for pensionary and promotional purposes, and shall be completed within six months from the date of receipt of the web-print of this judgment.

II. Vacancies and Future Appointments

(iii) To the extent of available or necessary sanctioned vacancies, the Respondents shall initiate administrative processes to fill the same through regular recruitment, as mandated under the constitutional scheme.

[2025:RJ-JD:21318] (8 of 10) [CW-12662/2013]

(iv) While issuing recruitment notifications, the Respondents shall allow petitioners and similarly situated persons, whose initial appointments were either irregular or illegal, to:

 Compete in open selection;

 Waive the age restrictions;

 Award weightage for past service as per Rule 20(2) of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring of Civil Posts Rules, 2022.

(v) Such recruitment notifications shall be issued within six months from the date of receipt of this judgment.

III. Petitioners With Less Than 10 Years of Service

(vi) The Respondents shall identify all petitioners/other similar employees whose initial appointments were irregular but not illegal, and who had not completed 10 years of service as on 08.07.2009. Such persons shall be accorded benefit of service weightage and age relaxation on parity with those whose appointments were illegal but eligible under Uma Devi principles.

IV. Petitioners with Illegal Appointments

(vii) In respect of petitioners/other employees whose initial appointments were found to be illegal, the State shall:

 Allow them to participate in regular recruitment processes;  Grant age relaxation and experience-based weightage as per Rule 20(2) of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring of Civil Posts Rules, 2022;

 Issue individual speaking orders communicating their status and eligibility within four months.

V. Constitution of Monitoring Committee

(viii) The Chief Secretary shall constitute a Monitoring Committee within 3 weeks of receipt of this judgment comprising:

 A retired High Court Judge after seeking prior consent(Chairperson),  Secretary, Department of Personnel, State of Rajasthan to act as member secretary),  An independent labour law expert (member).

The Committee shall:

 Oversee compliance with this judgment;

 Submit quarterly status reports to the Registrar Judicial of this Court to be placed before the learned Roster Judge for issuance further writ of continuous mandamus if warranted.

[2025:RJ-JD:21318] (9 of 10) [CW-12662/2013]

VI. Transparency & Accountability

(ix) The State Government is directed to publish the compliance report and list of regularized employees on its official website of department of personnel within 30 days of issuance of final regularization orders, to ensure transparency.

VII. Summary of Directions

For better clarity and enforceability, a tabular summary of steps to be taken is as below:-

Responsible Direction Action Timeline Authority Regularization from Identify eligible Chief 10-year completion petitioners/emplyee 6 months Secretary date s in the state Issue/publish Allow age Department of recruitment relaxation & 6 months Personnel advertisement weightage Compliance 1 month after Administrative Website notice publication regularization Dept Constitution of Oversight of Chief Monitoring 3 weeks execution Secretary Committee

27. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the following:

 The Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan,  The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan,  The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Rajasthan,  The Registrar Judicial of this Court for monitoring purposes.

27.1. Ordered accordingly.

28. Aforesaid directions be applied across board qua all those employees, who are found eligible in terms of the observations and guidelines laid down in instant judgment. Non-compliance with aforesaid specific directions within the stipulated time shall entail personal accountability of the concerned administrative heads and may invite contempt proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution."

4. In the aforesaid premise, the instant bunch of writ petitions

is also disposed of in light of the judgment, ibid. Accordingly, the

respondents are directed to take fresh decision on the claim of the

petitioners as per the observations and directions given in Giriraj

[2025:RJ-JD:21318] (10 of 10) [CW-12662/2013]

Prasad Sharma judgment, ibid, within a period of 6 months from

the date of receipt of the web print of the instant order.