Mukesh Kumar S/O Jagdish Vs the State of Rajasthan

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15894/2023

¶3

Pradeep Banarjee S/o Dilip Banarjee

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16119/2023 Amjad Khan S/o Shri Abdul Salam ----Petitioner Versus
State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17095/2023 Mohd. Shahid Hussain S/o Anwar Ali ----Petitioner Versus
The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17719/2023
Anita Kumari Sharma D/o Omprakash Sharma W/o Kuldeep Sharma ----Petitioner Versus
The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19584/2023 Mukesh Kumar S/o Jagdish ----Petitioner Versus
The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Choudhary Mohammad Wasim Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kesar Singh Shekhawat, AGC with Mr. Aditya Sharma

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

[CW-15894/2023]

(2 of 4)

JUDGMENT

04/03/2025

With the consent of respective parties and taking note of the fact that the present petitions involve akin factual narrative and legal issues, SBCWP No. 15894/2023 is taken as the lead petition and the ratio passed herein shall be made applicable on all the connected petitions on mutatis mutandis basis.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the instant matter is squarely covered by the judgment passed in SBCWP No.11528/2023 titled as Ramkishor Inaniyan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors . It is further submitted that the petitioners are engaged in Watershed Development Team as Members - Engineer Specialist, ever since 2006, on contractual basis. Further, it is submitted that the services of the petitioners are renewed by the respondents on various occasions.

¶13

Furthermore, it is submitted that vide order dated 22.08.2023 issued by the respondents, employees were to be recruited in the said department on contractual basis. However, as per the eligibility and qualification mentioned in the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules of 22), the petitioners are eligible and entitled to continue their service in the said department and despite the same, the respondents have inclined themselves, to engage fresh appointees and terminate the services of the petitioners herein. 4. Notwithstanding anything stated herein above, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that instant lis is no more res-integra as the controversy in the instant matter is

¶14

[CW-15894/2023]

¶15

(3 of 4)

¶16

already adjudicated vide the ratio encapsulated in Ramkishor Inaniyan (supra).

¶17

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinct, as in the office order dated 22.08.2023 it is clearly mentioned that services of employees working on regular basis shall be considered (Annexure-7).

¶18

It is further submitted that the experience certificate which is placed on record by the petitioners pertains to the Year 2013, however when Rules of 2022, came into force, the petitioners herein were not considered as the ‘regular employees’ of the department.

¶19

Howsoever, at this nascent juncture learned counsel for the petitioners has refuted the aforementioned contention and contended that the said experience certificate(s) was/were prepared qua the prospective selection process, initiated after 2013, and service of the petitioners were renewed on various occasions by the respondents, therefore, the petitioners herein are deemed to be the regular employees of the respondentdepartment.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondents are unable to refute the afore-said contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶21

Heard and considered.

¶22

Considering the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court deems it apposite to allow the present petition in terms of ratio encapsulated in Ramkishor

¶23

[CW-15894/2023]

¶24

(4 of 4)

¶25

Inaniyan (supra). Howsoever, respondents are at liberty to carry out the further selection process.

¶26

Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed in terms of the ratio encapsulated in Ramkishor Inaniyan (supra), with the aforementioned liberty being granted. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶27

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶28

Diksha/11-15

Mukesh Kumar S/O Jagdish v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar S/O Jagdish v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Singh Vs Union of India and Anr.

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sunita D/O Ram Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sajid Hussain Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Ashok Kumar Chugh S/O Late Shri Raj Kishan Chugh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Bikash Kumar Tiwari S/O Shri Ramesh Chandra Tiwari Vs State of Rajasthan