Ganga Vishan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:50723)
2025 Latest Caselaw 15968 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 15968 Raj
Judgement Date : 24 November, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ganga Vishan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:50723) on 24 November, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:50723]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6167/2025

Ganga Vishan S/o Shri Jagnath, Aged About 61 Years, R/o
Sathin, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Water
         Resources       Department,            Government          Of     Rajasthan,
         Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       The    Joint    Secretary,        Finance        Rules     Department      Of
         Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.       The Chief Engineer (H Q And I.t.), Water Resources
         Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4.       The    Chief     Engineer,        Water        Resources        Department,
         Rajasthan, Jodhpur.
5.       Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department, Sub
         Division, Bilara, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
6.       The    Dy.     Director,      Pension        And      Pensioners     Welfare
         Department, Jodhpur.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Manoj Purohit
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Mayank Sharma for
                                   Ms. Jaya Dadhich



               HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

24/11/2025

1. Both the learned counsels unanimously submit that the issue

involved in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment

of this Court in Harphool Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

& Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13130/2016 (decided on

05.12.2022), wherein the Court has observed and directed as

follows :-

(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 06:11:01 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50723] (2 of 3) [CW-6167/2025]

"Keeping into consideration the above observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the clear opinion that the present matters do fall within the parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. This is a specific case wherein keeping into consideration the said parameters, the Court definitely ought to interfere as here is a clear discrimination between the employees appointed by the same authorities, in the same manner, wherein the eligibility criteria was also the same and duties are also identical in all the aspects.

So far as the clarification dated 20.05.2016 is concerned, the contents or the facts of the same were never pleaded in reply to the writ petition nor was the said document placed on record. Therefore, the same could not have been refuted or controverted by the petitioners. Even otherwise, this Court is of the specific view that the clarification dated 20.05.2016 cannot be held to be valid as the same specifically discriminates between two set of employees of the same parent department.

In view of the above observations, the present writ petitions are allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to grant the benefit of the three selection grades to the petitioners on the promotional post of Work Supervisor Gr.I on the same terms, as granted to the Mate of the IGNP Department. The essential orders be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the present order.

All the pending applications also stand disposed of."

2. In view of the submissions made, the present writ petition is

also disposed of in terms of order passed by this Court in

Harphool Singh (supra). The respondent-Department shall be

(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 06:11:01 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50723] (3 of 3) [CW-6167/2025]

under obligation to pass appropriate orders within a period of four

weeks keeping into consideration the ratio laid down in the case of

Harphool Singh (supra).