Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sukha Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:46496) on 28 October, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:46496]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11186/2025
Sukha Ram S/o Magna Ram, Aged About 73 Years, R/o Kakarla,
Chak-1 Kkmb, Tharoosar, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Water Resources Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Joint Secretary, Finance (Rules) Department Of Finance,
Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Engineer, Indira Gandhi Canal Project, Bikaner.
4. The Chief Engineer, Command Area Development,
Bikaner.
5. The Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department (North)
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshil Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mayank Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
28/10/2025
1. Mr. Harshil Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is
squarely covered by the judgment dated 05.12.2022 passed by
the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions
led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13130/2016 ' Harphool Singh &
Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in the following terms:-
"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
(Uploaded on 29/10/2025 at 12:00:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46496] (2 of 2) [CW-11186/2025]
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 documents 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 pending
applications also stand disposed of."
2. Mr. Mayank Sharma submitted that principle issue seems to
be covered by the judgment in the case of Harphool Singh (supra)
but unless the competent authority perused the record, nothing
can be said with certitude.
3. The present writ petition is, therefore, allowed in light of the
Harphool Singh (supra) while giving liberty to the respondents to
take a decision after examining the record
(FARJAND ALI),J
232-chhavi/-
(Uploaded on 29/10/2025 at 12:00:22 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
