[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dr. Mohd. Waseem Khan Zai vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 November, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:50631]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4217/2020

1.        Dr. Mohd. Waseem Khan Zai S/o Mohd. Sharif Zai, Aged
          About 31 Years, R/o 71, J.k. Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur,
          Rajastha. (Presently Veterinary Officer At District
          Veterinary Mobile Unit, Jodhpur).
2.        Dr. Ramakant Soni S/o Shri Chotmal Singh, Aged About
          32 Years, R/o Sahi Kripa Society, Near Sarla Birla Kalyan
          Mandap, New Colony, Kutchaman City, District- Nagaur,
          Rajasthan. (Presently Veterinary Officer At Ceterinary
          Hospital Aakoda, Deedwana, District- Nagaur, Rajasthan).
3.        Dr. Vijay Singh Godara S/o Shri Dev Lal Ji Godara, Aged
          About 32 Years, R/o Vill. And Post- Barwali, Tehsil Nohar,
          District- Hanumangarh. Rajasthan. (Presently Veterinary
          Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital Khuliya, Tehsil- Nohar,
          District- Hanumangarh).
4.        Dr. Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About
          31 Years, Village-Dilki-Jatan Tehsil-Nohar, District -
          Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. (Presently Veterinary Officer At
          Govt. Veterinary Hospital Utradabas Bhadra District-
          Hanumangarh).
5.        Dr. Shahdab Ahmed Khan S/o Shri Iqbal Ahmed Khan,
          Aged About 37 Years, R/o 23/195, Shastri Nagar,
          Mohammidia Colony, Bhilwara, Rajasthan. (Presently
          Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital Danthal,
          District- Bhilwara).
6.        Dr. Narendra Singh S/o Shri Asoo Singh Shekhawat, Aged
          About 32 Years, R/o H. No. 402, Kailashpuri, Bikaner,
          Rajasthan. Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Badariya, Tehsil-
          Pokhran, Distt- Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
                                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                              Versus
1.        State Of Rajasthan, Through- The Principal Secretary,
          Department Of Animal Husbandry, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
          State Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2.        The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Jaipur,
          Rajasthan.
3.        The Rajasthan Public                       Service         Commission,              Ajmer,
          Through Its Secretary.
                                                                              ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)                  :     Mr. S.P. Sharma
                                         Mr. Abhimanyu Khatri
                                         Mr. Dalpat Singh
For Respondent(s)                  :     Mr. Ravindra Jhala for
                                         Mr. S.S. Ladrecha



      (D.B. SAW/740/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
                            (Uploaded onon02/12/2025
                           (Downloaded       02/12/2025atat11:01:19
                                                            09:04:29AM)
                                                                      PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:50631]                             (2 of 10)                                [CW-4217/2020]


                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                                Order

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON                                :::                           28/11/2025
ORDER RESERVED ON                                  :::                          21/11/2025


BY THE COURT:-

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners invoke

the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking issuance of appropriate writs to

safeguard their legitimate rights emanating from their long,

unbroken, and substantive engagement as Veterinary Officers on

sanctioned and vacant posts. Despite the unequivocal directions of

this Court in its judgment dated 19.01.2017 and the binding

mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.

495/2020, the respondents continue to subject the petitioners to

arbitrary annual extensions coupled with erratic disbursement of

salary. The petitioners, therefore, beseech this Court's intervention

for continuity of service, consideration for regularisation, and

timely payment of all consequential service benefits.

2. Briefly stated, the writ petition was originally instituted by

seven petitioners. During its pendency, Petitioner No. 7, Dr.

Naresh Nagar, unfortunately expired, and his name was deleted

vide order dated 03.03.2023. Consequently, six petitioners

remained on record, and as of now, only three Dr. Ramakant Soni

(P-2), Dr. Surendra Kumar (P-4), and Dr. Shahdab Ahmed Khan

(P-5) seek the indulgence of this Court, the others having already

selected through RPSC.

(D.B. SAW/740/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon02/12/2025 (Downloaded 02/12/2025atat11:01:19 09:04:29AM) PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50631] (3 of 10) [CW-4217/2020]

2.1 The petitioners possess B.V.Sc. & A.H. degrees from

recognized institutions and are duly registered with the Rajasthan

State Veterinary Council, rendering them fully qualified under the

Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Rules of 1963'). Owing to an acute manpower

exigency, the respondents issued an Urgent Temporary Basis

(UTB) Recruitment Advertisement on 14.03.2013 for

approximately 500 posts under Rule 26 of the Rules of 1963. Upon

being duly recommended by the Selection Committee with RPSC

approval, the petitioners were appointed vide order dated

19.09.2013, joining service by 29.09.2013, and have continued

since uninterruptedly, albeit temporarily and without regular pay.

2.2 Simultaneously, RPSC notified a regular recruitment on

02.05.2013 for 525 posts. The petitioners qualified the written

exam, appeared for interviews, and secured the minimum 50%

qualifying marks, yet were not selected. The process became

embroiled in prolonged litigation, leaving several posts unfilled.

Their services were abruptly terminated on 30.06.2016, prompting

multiple writ petitions wherein interim protection was granted,

thereby ensuring continuity of service. Extensions continued,

including via order dated 30.11.2016.

2.3 This Court, in its judgment dated 19.01.2017, recorded that

150 out of 525 posts remained unfilled and directed their filling

from the reserve list while continuing the petitioners in service

with regular salary. Non-compliance ensued, triggering contempt

proceedings. The matter ascended to the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

which on 21.01.2020 remanded it for determining SC/ST backlog

vacancies. Upon remand, this Court identified 14 available posts,

eventually allocating one to Dr. Narendra Singh (P-6), who joined

on 29.09.2023. Similarly situated petitioners, however, remained

excluded.

2.4 Proceedings were further delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic,

and only on 10.08.2021 was the controversy addressed, pursuant

to which Dr. Narendra Singh alone secured appointment. The

remaining petitioners despite identical merit received neither

regularisation nor appointment under Recruitment-2013. Their

salary continued to be irregular, contingent upon repetitive RPSC

approvals. Earlier writ petitions for pay parity were partly allowed

on 20.01.2020, granting petitioners Minimum of Pay Scale under

Jagjit Singh, while keeping the issue of regularisation open.

2.5. Subsequently, Recruitment-2019 for 900 posts was notified

on 22.10.2019. Though all petitioners secured above 50% marks,

only two Dr. Waseem Khan Zai (P-1) and Dr. Vijay Singh Godara

(P-3) were selected and joined in December 2024. Thus, three

petitioners (P-2, P-4 & P-5) remain in service without

regularisation despite 12+ years of continuous duty on sanctioned

posts.

3. Learned counsel submits, at the outset, that the writ petition

has now become infructuous for Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, and 6, as

they have already secured substantive appointments through

subsequent recruitment processes. Thus, the present lis survives

only for the remaining three petitioners, who continue to serve on

sanctioned posts for more than twelve years without

regularisation.

3.1. Counsel contends that after the matter was remanded by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court on 21.01.2020, the pending contempt

petitions were converted into writ miscellaneous applications. The

outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic caused protracted delays,

resulting in a final adjudication only on 10.08.2021. Pursuant

thereto, Petitioner No. 6 alone received appointment in September

2023, leaving the other petitioners despite identical eligibility and

merit without any consequential benefit.

3.2. It is urged that all petitioners had secured 50% or more

qualifying marks in the Veterinary Officer Recruitment-2013, and

were thus entitled to consideration for appointment in terms of the

liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Yet the

respondents neither regularised them nor ensured timely

disbursement of salary, which remained contingent upon repetitive

approvals from the RPSC.

3.3. The counsel further submits that earlier writ petitions

seeking parity in pay were partly allowed vide order dated

20.01.2020, granting the petitioners Minimum of Pay Scale under

the law declared in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh. The present

writ petition, therefore, survives only on the limited issue of

regularisation.

3.4. Despite participating and securing more than 50% marks in

the subsequent Recruitment-2019 for 900 posts, only two

petitioners namely Dr. Waseem Khan Zai and Dr. Vijay Singh

Godara were selected and have since joined service.

Consequently, three petitioners remain unabsorbed despite long

tenure, continuous work, and demonstrable merit.

3.5. Counsel emphasizes that the petitioners were initially

appointed under Rule 26 of the Rules of1963, on an Urgent

Temporary Basis for one year, but their tenure has been extended

continuously since 29.09.2013 solely due to persistent vacancies.

The respondents themselves have filled further UTB posts through

appointment orders dated 30.08.2022, 14.11.2022, and

11.06.2025, confirming that hundreds of posts remain vacant. Yet

the petitioners, despite discharging full-time duties on sanctioned

posts for over a decade, have been denied permanence.

3.6. Reliance is placed upon the decisions in Vinod Kumar

(2024 INSC 332), Jaggo v. Union of India, Dharam Singh,

Vijay Kumar Joshi, Om Prakash, and Smt. Uji Devi, which

unequivocally hold that long-term ad hoc employees serving on

sanctioned posts for over ten years are entitled to regularisation

from the date of completion of ten years, regular pay scale, and

permanent status without undergoing further probation.

3.7. Lastly, counsel submits that the continued denial of

regularisation is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles

14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioners have a legitimate

expectation, fortified by judicial precedents and their unblemished

service record, to be granted regularisation, full pay scale, arrears,

and permanent status, therefore, the instant writ petition may be

allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits, with due

candor, that the State does not dispute the fact that out of the six

petitioners, three have already been extended the reliefs sought,

either through regular recruitment or pursuant to judicial

directions. It is therefore acknowledged that the claims of

Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, and 6 stand satisfied.

4.1. Counsel further states that the respondents have no

objection if, in order to maintain parity and uniformity of

treatment, the remaining petitioners are also extended benefits

commensurate with those already regularised, subject to their

satisfying the requisite eligibility criteria and availability of

sanctioned vacancies. The respondents clarify that such

concession is made in the spirit of fairness, without admitting any

procedural infirmity on their part.

4.2. It is emphasized that the State has at all times acted within

the confines of statutory rules and constitutional norms; however,

if this Court considers the remaining petitioners entitled to similar

relief, the respondents shall abide by and implement any such

direction promptly and in good faith.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and minutely

gone through the material placed on record.

5.1. Upon a meticulous consideration of the rival submissions

and a comprehensive perusal of the material placed on record,

this Court is of the considered view that the controversy now

stands substantially narrowed. It is an admitted position that

Petitioner No.1 Dr. Waseem Khan Zai, Petitioner No.3 Dr. Vijay

Singh Godara, and Petitioner No.6 Dr. Narendra Singh have

already been accorded the benefit of substantive appointment

and regularisation, either through the recruitment processes

subsequently undertaken or pursuant to judicial directions issued

in the preceding rounds of litigation. Accordingly, the writ

petition, to that extent, stands rendered infructuous, and the lis

now survives only in respect of Petitioner Nos. 2, 4, and 5, who

continue to serve on sanctioned and vacant posts for a period

exceeding twelve years.

5.2. This Court cannot remain oblivious to the fact that the

three surviving petitioners stand on an identical factual and legal

footing as those already regularised. Their appointments

emanated from the same selection process conducted under Rule

26 of the Rules of 1963; they possess the same qualifications;

they have rendered uninterrupted service for over a decade;

and they have secured the minimum 50% qualifying marks in the

regular recruitment process. The principle of parity, deeply

embedded in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, therefore

compels uniformity in the extension of service benefits.

5.3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions

including State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1,

State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148, Dharam

Singh v. State of U.P., Civil Appeal No. 8558/2018, and

most recently Vinod Kumar v. Union of India (2024 INSC

332), has consistently held that long-term ad hoc, contractual or

temporary employees who have served for ten years or more on

duly sanctioned posts and whose appointments are not tainted by

illegality, acquire a legitimate expectation of regularisation. The

Supreme Court has further clarified in Jaggo v. Union of India

(SLP (C) No. 5580/2024) that denial of regularisation to

employees who have continuously discharged full duties on

sanctioned posts amounts to manifest arbitrariness.

5.4. In the present case, the petitioners' uninterrupted service

since 29.09.2013, the persistent existence of vacancies, and the

State's continued resort to Urgent Temporary Basis (UTB)

appointments evidenced through successive orders dated

30.08.2022, 14.11.2022, and 11.06.2025 clearly demonstrate

that the petitioners were not merely engaged to meet a transient

exigency, but have been performing core, perennial, and

substantive duties of the cadre post. In such circumstances, the

denial of regularisation to only three among a homogeneous

cohort would be violative of the equality clause and repugnant to

established jurisprudence.

5.5. This Court also notes with emphasis that the petitioners

have already been extended Minimum of Pay Scale, pursuant to

the judgment dated 20.01.2020 in line with Jagjit Singh (supra),

which implicitly acknowledges the substantive nature of duties

performed by them. The remaining grievance pertains solely to

regularisation and consequential benefits.

5.6. In view of the above legal and factual landscape, this Court

is persuaded that denying regularisation to Petitioner Nos. 2, 4,

and 5 would be arbitrary, discriminatory, and antithetical to

constitutional guarantees. Thus, the writ petition, in so far as it

concerns Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, and 6, stands dismissed as

infructuous, their services having already been regularised. In

respect of Petitioner Nos. 2, 4, and 5, this Court, while

maintaining parity with Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, and 6, holds that

they are entitled to the same relief.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent it

relates to their claim for regularisation, and it is hereby directed

that their services shall stand regularised from the date on which

they completed their 10 years' of service computing from the

date of their initial date of joining in the service [with all

consequential benefits .

6.1. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above,

and all pending applications, including the stay petition, stand

disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J

176-Mamta/-

(D.B. SAW/740/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon02/12/2025 (Downloaded 02/12/2025atat11:01:19 09:04:29AM) PM)