[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Poonam Acharya vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:14204) on 24 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:14204]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15899/2023
1. Poonam Acharya D/o Brijbihari Acharya, Aged About 37
Years, Chawanda Colony D Road, Bilara, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
2. Sunita Singh W/o Shri Anjani Singh, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o Plo Tno. 8, Gandhi Nagar, Behind Rajasthan Patrika,
Pali, Rajasthan.
3. Preeti Sharma W/o Rajesh Sharma, Aged About 48 Years,
R/o Jawahar Nagar, Ward 19 Pratapnagar, Pratapnagar,
Rajasthan.
4. Dimple Kanwar D/o Govardhan Singh, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Village Post Panchalwada, Tehsil Bali, District
Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief
Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director And Ex-Officio Special Secretary, Watershed
Development And Soil Conservation Department, Pant
Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Superintending Engineer And Project Manager,
Watershed Cell Cum Data Center, Zila Parishad Jodhpur,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. The Superintending Engineer And Project Manager,
Watershed Cell Cum Data Center, Zila Parishad Udaipur,
District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. The Superintending Engineer And Project Manager,
Watershed Cell Cum Data Center, Zila Parishad Pali,
District Pali, Rajasthan.
6. The Superintending Engineer And Project Manager,
Watershed Cell Cum Data Center, Zila Parishad
Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None present
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yogesh Sharma for
Mr. I.R. Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
24/03/2026
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 03:09:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14204] (2 of 4) [CW-15899/2023]
1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that
the controversy involved in the present writ petition stands
squarely covered by an order passed by the coordinate
bench of this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
11528/2023 Ramkishor Inaniyan v. State of Rajasthan
decided on 07.01.2025, wherein the issue has already been
adjudicated.
3. For ready reference, relevant paragraphs of the judgment
are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"17. So far as petitioners' entitlement to be
absorbed/adopted under the Rules of 2022 is
concerned, the same is not in dispute, except for the
educational qualification.
18. It is to be noted that the Director-respondent No.2
had favorably recommended petitioners' cases to be
adopted under the Rules of 2022, but the reason for
which the State has turned down the petitioners' names
in the list of employees to be absorbed/adopted under
the Rules of 2022 on 07.08.2023 is, that they do not
possess educational qualification as has been
prescribed.
19. Rule 7 of the Rules of 2022 reads thus:-
Qualifications and eligibility criteria for appointment:-
"The academic qualification, experience, duties,
responsibilities of the post created under these rules
shall be decided by the Administrative Department with
the concurrence of the Department of Personnel and
Finance Department."
20. Learned Government Counsel has pointed out that
the educational qualification which has been prescribed
for subject expert (Civil and Agriculture) is
diploma/degree in Civil and Agriculture Engineering,
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 03:09:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14204] (3 of 4) [CW-15899/2023]
whereas the petitioners are having diploma/degree in
Mechanical and Electrical Engineering. He has however,
not placed on record any decision/resolution as
provided under above quoted Rule 7.
21. It is to be noted that when the petitioners were
firstly engaged in the year, 2012, they had been
engaged regardless of the fact that they were having
diploma/degree in Mechanical and Electrical
Engineering, as requisite number of persons having
diploma/degree in Agriculture/Civil were not available.
Such relaxation too was granted in light of the terms of
advertisement as reproduced in Para No.4 above.
22. According to this Court, when the petitioners were
engaged as WDT as per education qualification which
they possessed, no fault can be found in their eligibility
under the Rules of 2022. What has been relied upon by
the State is note-sheet fixing the
honorarium/remuneration and not the educational
qualification.
23. Even if it is taken to be prescription of educational
qualification, then also this Court feels that while
prescribing the educational qualification to be
considered under the Rules of 2022, the competent
authority could not prescribe the educational
qualification other than what was prescribed while
engaging them in the year 2012.
24. Since, the petitioners were engaged as WDT and
had discharged their services for requisite number of
years, the action of the respondents in depriving them
of their right to be adopted/engaged under the Rules of
2022 cannot be countenanced.
25. The action of the respondent has led to hostile
discrimination against the petitioners on no intelligible
criteria. Having worked for equal number of years, the
WDT having diploma/degree in Agriculture or Civil
cannot be considered different or at a higher pedestal
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 03:09:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14204] (4 of 4) [CW-15899/2023]
than the petitioners who have diploma/degree in
Mechanical and Electrical Engineering.
26. The petitioners' cases have been turned down on
absolutely untenable and unsustainable ground, more
particularly, when prescription of educational
qualification is not a part of the Rules of 2022 and the
same has been delegated to Department of Personnel
and Finance Department, and there is nothing on record
to show that the candidates having degree or diploma
in Electrical or Mechanical were not eligible.
27. That apart, the Director-respondent No.2 had
favorably recommended petitioners' case and there is
nothing adverse against them.
28. For the reasons foregoing, the writ petition is
allowed.
29. The respondents are directed to issue appropriate
administrative order adopting/absorbing the petitioners
under the Rules of 2022, if they are otherwise eligible.
Requisite order be passed within a period of two
months from today.
30. Stay application also stands disposed of,
accordingly."
4. In view of the aforesaid submission and the fact that the
controversy is no longer res integra, the present writ petition
is disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in the case of
Ramkishor Inaniyan (supra).
5. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
6. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
69-Samvedana/-
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 03:09:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
