State of Rajasthan Vs Pryagwati W/O Shri Babu Lal

Pryagwati W/o Shri Babu Lal, R/o Isarda, Near Gopal Temple, District Sawai Madhopur, At Present Working As Cook In Govt. Hostel, Isarda, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

¶14

Katar Lal Meena S/o Shri Nanda Ji, R/o Daman Dungari, Tehsil Pipalkhunt, District Pratapgarh, At Present Working As Guard In Govt. Jyoti Rao Phoole Girls Hostel, District Pratapgarh (Raj.)

¶15

Asha Bai W/o Shri Chittar Lal Sain, R/o Shivaji Marg, Hindauli, District Bundi, At Present Working As Cook, Govt. Ambedkar Hostel, Hindauli, District Bundi (Raj.)

¶16

Smt. Gori W/o Shri Sukhpal, R/o Amjhrot, Tehsil Bichchhuwada, District Dungarpur, At Present Working As Cook In Govt. Jyoti Rao Phoole Girls Hostel, District Chittorgarh (Raj.)

¶17

Ram Bhajan S/o Mishri Lal, R/o Mukam Post Digod Par, Tehsil Kishanganj, District Baran, At Present Working As Guard In Govt. Ambedkar Hostel, District Baran, (Raj.)

(2 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:3060-DB]

[SAW-97/2025]

----Respondents

¶22

For Appellant(s)	: Ms. Divya Rathore, Adv. &
	Mr. Anshul Ranga,Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Kailash Chander Sharma,Adv.

¶23

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

¶24

Order

¶25

22/01/2026

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that the relief as directed by the learned Single Judge was granted to the other respondents-writ petitioners. However, so far as the respondent No.1(writ petitioner), Pryagwati is concerned, relief of regularization could not be granted as she is illiterate and has not passed 5^th standard which is the minimum requirement for appointment under the rules of Rajasthan Class-IV Recruitment Rules, 1999, and the present rules of Rajasthan Class-IV Recruitment Rules, 2024.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed before us the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶28

Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation; Writ Petition No.100/1988 which is a three judge bench judgment as well as the judgment passed by this Court in case of State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Medical & Health Vs Smt. Chhoti Devi; 2018(1) WLC (Raj.) UC 208 to submit that it would be hard and harsh to deny confirmation in respective posts on the ground that a person lacks the prescribed educational qualifications.

¶29

We have considered the submissions.

[2026:RJ-JP:3060-DB]

[SAW-97/2025]

(3 of 4)

We notice that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge directs the appellants to grant relief to the respondents-writ petitioners as the same terms as directed in an earlier judgment passed in the case of Anokh Bai Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.372/2013 which

¶34

is reproduced as under:-

¶35

“In the light of the discussion made above, I am inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of wages at the rate of minimum of the pay scale for the post of Cook and Watchman while denying the benefit of regularisation sought by them, as otherwise not pressed by the petitioners.

¶36

All the writ petitions are accordingly allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay wages to the petitioners at the rate of minimum of the pay scale. The benefit aforesaid would be given to the petitioners from the date of pronouncement of the judgment.

¶37

The compliance of this judgment would be made by the respondents within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

¶38

Thus, we find that only minimum pay scale of the post has been directed to be paid from the date of pronouncement of the judgment.

¶39

In our considered opinion, for the purpose of grant of minimum of the pay scale, the requirement of educational qualification would not come in way, as the person is not being directed to be regularized. Even for the purpose of regularization, we notice that the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (supra) clearly holds that denial on the ground of lack of qualification would be an illegality.

¶40

We, therefore, are unable to accept the contention made by the learned counsel that the respondent’s case should be treated differently from the other writ petitioners. She would therefore, be

(4 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:3060-DB]

[SAW-97/2025]

entitled to the same benefits as granted to the others from the same date as directed by learned Single Judge.

¶45