Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN MONGA, J.
Sumera Ram S/o Sh. Chuna Ram - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12662 of 2013
Decided on : 01-05-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21 - Regularization of services - Petitioners, employed in various Class-III and IV posts, sought regularization after years of service without formal appointments - Court emphasized the need for substantive justice and adherence to the doctrine of legitimate expectation - The prolonged denial of regularization was deemed an infringement of equality and dignity rights. (Paras 17-26)
(B) Administrative Law - The court directed the State to regularize eligible petitioners within six months and to ensure compliance with the principles laid down in previous judgments, particularly Uma Devi - The need for a Monitoring Committee was highlighted to oversee compliance and ensure transparency. (Paras 18.1, 26)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were employed in various capacities for decades without regularization, leading to claims for their rights to regularization based on continuous service and assurances from the State.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prolonged denial of regularization constituted administrative injustice and directed the State to regularize eligible employees and fill vacancies through proper recruitment processes.
Issues: The main issues included the regularization of employees with irregular appointments, the application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, and the need for administrative accountability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that procedural rigidity cannot override substantive justice, especially when employees have served for decades, and emphasized the importance of the doctrine of legitimate expectation in administrative law.
Result: The petitions were disposed of with specific directions for regularization and compliance.
ORDER :
1. Petitioners were appointed/employed on various Class-III & IV posts. They are continuing in service since their respective appointments. However, their services have not been regularized. Hence they seek directions to the respondents to regularize their services and grant consequential benefits.
2. Following tables show initial dates of appointments of petitioners and their respective posts:-
Table-(1) - Pertaining to CLASS-IV Employees (reserved on 19.02.2025)
| Sr. No. | CWP No. | Petitioners names | Appointed on | Post | Office/Department |
| 1. | 12662/2013 | Sumera Ram | 01.11.1995 | Cook | Department of Social Justice |
| 2. | 8314/2016 | Tola Ram | 27.11.1990 | Cook | Department of Social Justice, Pali |
| 3. | 10768/2016 | Narayan Katara | 1993 | Cook | Govt. Scheduled Caste Girls Hostel, Dungarpur |
| 4. | 15272/2016 | Rajendra Kumar | 20.07.1998 | Watchman | Department of Social Welfare, Hanumangarh |
| 5. | 5901/2019 | Manju Devi | 1989 | Safai Karamchari | CPWD, Mount Abu |
| 6. | 14756/2024 | Giradhari Lal & 4 others | 1995 & 1996 | Security Guard cum Cook | Department of Social Justice, Barmer, Jaipur, Dausa, Ganganagar |
| 7. | 1332/2025 | Khemraj Garg @ Khimraj Garg & Anr | 14.07.2014 & 01.07.2011 | Chowkidar | Assistant Director, Social Welfare Department, Pali & Bundi |
| 8. | 3260/2025 | Bhanwar Lal & Anr. | Oct, 2009 & Aug, 2004 | Class-IV | Department of Social Justice, Udaipur |
Table-(2) - Pertaining to CLASS-III Employees (reserved on 19.02.2025)
| Sr. No. | CWP No. | Petitioners names | Appointed on | Post | Office/Department |
| 1. | 3575/2014 | Ravinder Singh | 30.04.1997 | Driver | Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner |
| 2. | 7310/2009 | Murai Lal Gupta | 20.01.1988 | Technical Assistant (Civil) | Agriculture University, Bikaner |
Table-(3) - Pertaining to CLASS-IV Employees (reserved on 20.02.2025)
| Sr. No. | CWP No. | Petitioners names | Appointed on | Post | Office/Department |
| 1 | 505/2015 | Ram Lal Dewasi & Ors. | 1990 to 1998 | Sales Man | Raj. State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. |
| 2 | 4739/2025 | Shivlal & 2 Ors. | 13.09.1990 25.09.1996 | Ward Boy | Medical & Health, Pali |
3. Vide a judgment dated 29.04.2025 rendered by this very Bench in the case titled Giriraj Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7603/2023, similar controversy has already been adjudicated. The reasons and discussion therein be read as part and parcel of the instant order and the same are not being repeated for the sake of brevity. Relevant extract thereof, is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“CONCLUSION
17. To sum up, the constitutional ethos mandate not merely procedural fairness but substantive justice. In a welfare State, the prolonged denial of regularization despite continuous service for decades borders on institutional exploitation, which ought not to be countenanced. The delay in implementing the directions of the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi by over three years (from April 2006 to July 2009) is a gross administrative default. Penalizing employees for this governmental inaction would amount to travesty of justice. Let it be reiterated — a failure to strictly follow procedure in an otherwise valid and sanctioned appointment does not render the appointment illegal. Blurring this distinction undermines the very spirit of Uma Devi and subsequent jurisprudence. The doctrine of legitimate expectation, well- recognized in administrative law, is clearly attracted. The petitioners, by virtue of decades of continuous service and recurring ofÏcial assurances or circulars, had a legitimate expectation of being considered for regularization. A denial thereof not only defeats fairness but shakes trust in State’s conduct. Apart there from, denial of regularization to persons who are similarly situated as those already regularized is a blatant infringement of the equality clause under Article 14, and continued exploitation of services without security undermines Article 21, which guarantees dignity of life.
18.1. The State should, in fact, also constitute a Monitoring Committee to oversee compliance with this judgment. This exercise is not intended to create a precedent for future appointments through irregular means.
It is a one-time corrective measure arising fro
AI
The court established that prolonged denial of regularization for employees with continuous service violates Articles 14 and 21, emphasizing substantive justice and the doctrine of legitimate expecta....
Public employees with irregular but legal appointments, having served over ten years, must be regularized based on established principles of administrative law and rights under the Constitution.
The court established that employees with irregular but not illegal appointments, who have served continuously for over ten years, are entitled to regularization and associated benefits, emphasizing ....
Appointments not being sponsored by the employment exchange, as prescribed under Rule 149(2) of the Rules, would only make the appointments irregular and not illegal.
Regularization of services for employees who have served for over ten years is a right that must be considered by the state, provided there are no valid objections, and the state must adhere to its o....
The court emphasized that long-serving employees misclassified as part-time should be considered for regularization under applicable government orders, ensuring adherence to principles of natural jus....
Regularization of long-serving daily wage employees is mandated after 10 years of service, acknowledging functional continuity despite initial irregularities, violating constitutional rights otherwis....
Court established that employees working for over ten years on sanctioned posts are entitled to regularization under established rules, reinforcing protections against arbitrary dismissal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
