Saket Kumar Harijan vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 16169 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Saket Kumar Harijan vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 26 November, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:51322]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4042/2019

1.       Saket Kumar Harijan S/o Shri Kaluram, Aged About 20
         Years, Udaibhan Gate, Harijan Basti, Ward No, 12,
         Shahpura, District Bhilwara.
2.       Gouri Shankar S/o Shyam Lal, Aged About 30 Years,
         Harijan Basti, Ward No, 12, Shahpura, District Bhilwara.
                                                                    ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
         Department       Of     Local      Self,     Government        Secretary,
         Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       Director, Department Of Local Body, Government Of
         Rajasthan, Near Civil Line, Jaipur.
3.       Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Shahpura, District
         Bhilwara.
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Om Rajpurohit



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

26/11/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed laying a challenge to

condition of advertisement No.01/2012 as well as guidelines dated

03.05.2013 as adopted qua the recruitment process of Safai

Karamcharis undertaken vide the said advertisement.

2. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the

petitioners were selected in the draw of lottery held on

09.10.2014. However, they were not afforded appointment on the

count that the other members of their family had been afforded

appointment.

(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 06:12:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51322] (2 of 2) [CW-4042/2019]

3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that it was

subsequently settled vide various judgments that the condition to

not recruit two members of the same family is arbitrary and

illegal. Therefore, the petitioners deserve to be appointed.

4. Heard the counsel. Perused the record.

5. So far as the averment made in the petition regarding the

petitioners having been selected is concerned, there is no

document available on record to reflect so as no select list has

been annexed. Further, except the averment of the petitioners,

there is no document, whatsoever, to assert the said fact. When

the fact of the selection of the petitioners itself is not established,

the prayer to grant them appointment cannot be said to be

tenable on any count.

6. Furthermore, there is nothing available on record to suggest

that the petitioners were not granted appointment on the pretext

of the other family members having been afforded appointment.

No detail of any such family member has been submitted in the

complete writ petition. That is to say, the present writ petition is

as vague as it can be.

7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain

the present writ petition or the vague pleadings and the writ

petition is hence dismissed.

8. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J 37-KashishS/-

(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 06:12:23 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)