Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Arti vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:47993) on 7 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:47993]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21781/2025
Arti D/o Dhanroop, Aged About 28 Years, Bapu Basti, Block No.
1, Mount Abu, District Sirohi.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Director, Directorate Local Self Department, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
3. The Deputy Director (Administration), Local Self
Department, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
4. Municipal Board Mount Abu, District Sirohi (Rajasthan).
Through Its Commissioner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sangram Singh
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
07/11/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy in question rests covered by the judgment passed by
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.1952/2019; Jitendra Kumar Tailor Vs. The State of
Rajasthan & Ors. (decided on 06.07.2020). He submits that the
petitioner would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to
decide the representation of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid
judgment.
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 04:55:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47993] (2 of 4) [CW-21781/2025]
2. In Jitendra Kumar's case (supra), it was observed and
held as under: "Petitioner was initially engaged by the Municipal
Board, Nawa, as Computer Operator, vide order dated 12th of
April, 2007. It is, inter alia, averred in the writ petition that since
inception of his service career, petitioner is discharging his duties
with utmost satisfaction and he has to his credit requisite
qualification of Computer Operator. It is also reflected from the
pleadings that State Govt. in exercise of power under Section 328
of the Rajasthan Municipalities Rules, 2009, has sanctioned
number of posts for various municipalities and one post of
Computer Operator is also sanctioned for respondent
No.4,Municipal Board, Nawa. The decision of the State Govt. in
this behalf was conveyed by the Dy. Director, Local Self Govt. vide
order dated 30.09.2013. The petition also unfurls that considering
the longevity of the services of petitioner and his satisfactory
performance as Computer Operator prompted the Municipal Board
to recommend for regularization of his services on the post of
Computer Operator. Accordingly, recommendation in this behalf
was sent by the Municipal Board to the State Government but
same is still pending before the State Govt. The petitioner has also
placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in State of
Karnataka V/s. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. While referring to
office order dated 15th of March,2017 (Annex.6), it is also pleaded
that the Local Self Govt. has issued necessary directions for
implementing the verdict given in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.18056/2015 (Roshan Lal Saini V/s. State & Ors., decided on
9th of March, 2017) for regularization of the services of employees
in consonance with the policy adopted by the State Govt. Learned
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 04:55:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47993] (3 of 4) [CW-21781/2025]
counsel appearing for the State Govt. has not disputed that
recommendations have been sent by Municipal Board but has
submitted that the matter is still pending consideration before the
Directorate. In this view of the matter, I deem it just and
appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the
State Govt. to decide the matter at the earliest to facilitate
issuance of requisite order of regularization of petitioner's
services, strictly in accordance with law. The requisite exercise be
undertaken by the State Govt. at the earliest, preferably within a
period of four weeks from the date presentation of this order. The
writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The stay application also
stands disposed of accordingly."
3. In view of the submission made, the present writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the competent
authority/respondents to decide the representation of the
petitioner if filed within a period of fifteen days from now. The
representation be decided within a period of six weeks there after
in accordance with law and keeping in view the observations made
in the case of Jitendra Kumar (supra).
4. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the
representation has been issued only with a view to ensure
expeditious redressal of petitioner's grievance.
5. The order has been passed based on the submissions made
in the petition and by learned counsel for the petitioner before this
Court. The respondents would be free to examine the veracity of
the submissions made in the petition and only in case, the
averments made therein are found to be correct, appropriate
orders would be passed in favour of the petitioners.
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 04:55:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47993] (4 of 4) [CW-21781/2025]
6. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
236-divya/-
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 04:55:34 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
