Dismissed

Raghuveer Sharan Joshi Son of Sh. Yogendra Sharma v. Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan HC11 Aug 2025CW/10306/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court upheld the amendment to Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts (Driver And Class-IV Employees) Service Rules, 2017, which reserved 25% of Clerk Grade-II vacancies for Class-IV employees. The Court found the provision valid as it served the legitimate goal of reducing stagnation among Class-IV employees and did not violate Articles 14 and 16.

What the court decided

AI extract

Raghuveer Sharan Joshi Son of Sh. Yogendra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:31166-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10306/2019

¶4

Raghuveer Sharan Joshi Son Of Sh. Yogendra Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Sikandara, Tehsil Sikrai, Dist. Dausa, Rajasthan. (Presently Posted As Process Server At Dist Judge Dausa. Date Of First Appointment 05.10.2002)

¶5

Radha Mohan Rajoriya Son Of Sh. Ram Gopal Rajoriya, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Village Kesri Singh Pura, Tehsil Baswa, Dist. Dausa, Rajasthan. (Presently Posted As Process Server At Addl. Dist Judge No. 1, Bandikui, Dausa, Date Of First Appointment 13.08.2001)

¶6

Jagan Prasad Bairwa Son Of Sh. Ram Karan Bairwa, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Peechupada Kalan, Tehsil Baswa, Dist. Dausa, Rajasthan. (Presently Posted As Process Server At Addl. Dist Judge No. 1, Bandikui, Dausa, Date Of First Appointment 13.08.2001)

¶7

Mahipal Son Of Sh. Pyara Lal, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Barkat Colony, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Presently Posted As Process Server At Addl. Dist Lalsot, Dausa, Date Of First Appointment 12.11.2001)

¶8

Vijay Singh Choudhary Son Of Sh. Darab Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of User, Post Enchera, Tehsil Nadbai, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Presently Posted As Process Server Date Of First Appointement 30.07.2004)

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

Rajasthan High Court, Through Registrar General, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶12

State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Law Secretary, Department Of Law And Legal Affairs, Govt. Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶14

Dist. And Session Judge, Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)

¶17

: Mr. Vikas Kabra

¶18

: Mr. Prateek Kasliwal

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

¶20

Order

¶21

(2 of 4)

¶22

[2025:RJ-JP:31166-DB]

¶23

[CW-10306/2019]

¶24

11/08/2025

¶25

The challenge is to the provision contained in amendment made in Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts (Driver And Class-IV Employees) Service Rules, 2017 (for short ‘the Rules of 2017’), whereby following provision was added:-

¶26

“(b) to the general cadre as Clerk Grade-II by a Competitive Examination:

¶27

Provided that 25% of the total number of vacancies of the Clerk Gr-II in each Judgeship shall be reserved for being filled in by promotion from amongst, the process server and class IV employees who have put in five years service in the Judgeship concerned and possess the academic qualification prescribed in these rules for the post of Clerk Grade-II in 1:2 (1 Process Server and 2 Class IV Employees):”

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts (Driver And Class-IV Employees) Service Rules, 2017, a Class-IV employee on completing three years of service, becomes eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Process Server, which is a 100% promotion post. Once a Class-IV employee is in avenue for promotion to the post of Process Server, he cannot be placed at relevant stage to that of Process Server for the purpose of promotion to the post of Clerk Grade-II. Learned counsel further submits that by providing and adding chances of Class-IV employees for promotion to the post of Clerk Grade-II, the rights of the existing Process Servers, has been affected. Learned counsel submits that the rule having taking away the valuable right of consideration for promotion of the Process Server, deserves to be declared ultra-vires . Learned counsel also submits that the very purpose of being promoted as Process Server from Class-IV employee would fade, if both are put

¶29

(3 of 4)

¶30

[2025:RJ-JP:31166-DB]

¶31

[CW-10306/2019]

¶32

at the equal pedestal. Learned counsel submits that both the posts cannot be placed equally and in terms of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

Reply has been filed.

¶34

It has been pointed out that as per the Rules of 2017, the post of Process Server has been held to be a 100% promotion post and therefore, Class-IV employees who have put in three years service, become eligible for consideration for promotion. The amendment made in the Rules of 2017 providing chances to Class-IV employees, who have put in five years in service for consideration for promotion as Clerk Grade-II, has been made with the sole purpose to give an avenue of promotion to Class-IV employees as the number of posts of Process Servers are much less.

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondents have also pointed out that the promotion avenue to the post of Clerk Grade-II was provided prior to the change of criteria of promotion to the post of Process Server.

¶36

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties. 7. We find that the purpose of providing added avenue of promotion to the Class-IV employees germanes from the fact that there are much higher number of Class-IV employees, while the post of Process Server in Courts are much lesser. The stagnation on the post of Class-IV employees needs to be considered accordingly. If an additional avenue of promotion has been provided to the Class-IV employees, the same cannot be said to

¶37

(4 of 4)

¶38

[2025:RJ-JP:31166-DB]

¶39

[CW-10306/2019]

¶40

be without having any nexus to the purpose sought to be achieved.

¶41

The relevance of the amendment, therefore, having been made out and the chances of promotion are available to the Process Servers too, if the ratio is 1:2 on the post of Clerk GradeII sufficiently takes care of them.

¶42

We, therefore, do not find any reason to hold the provision ultra-vires or discriminatory in character.

¶43

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶44

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶45

(SANJEET PUROHIT),J

¶46

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶47

SAHIL SONI /106

Raghuveer Sharan Joshi Son of Sh. Yogendra Sharma v. Rajasthan High Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Raghuveer Sharan Joshi Son of Sh. Yogendra Sharma v. Rajasthan High Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Rajasthan Vs Goverdhan Meena S/O Ramkaran Meena

State of Rajasthan Vs Neeraj Singh S/O Shri Fatee Singh

State of Rajasthan, Vs Prakash Chandra Meena S/O Shri Lalu Meena

Hariprasad Malhotra S/O Shri Ginniram Vs Dinesh Kumar

Babulal Son of Shri Ganpatram Vs State of Rajasthan

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd.