[2025:RJ-JD:54172]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9657/2019

Taruna Sarvan D/o Om Prakash Sarvan, Aged About 21 Years,

Resident Of Udaimandir Harijan Basti, Tilak Nagar, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Local

Self Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Raj.

2. Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, Through Its

Commissioner.

3. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet R. Dave

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Purohit with

Ms. Darshita Pungaliya

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

16/12/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 29.03.2019 (Annex.7) whereby appointment of the

petitioner on the post of ‘Safai Karamchari’, stood cancelled.

2. Vide the order impugned, it was observed that the experience certificate as filed by the petitioner was contrary to the averment as made by her before the Committee during personal

hearing.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice was ever served on the petitioner, calling upon her to reply to any specific averment. So far as the experience certificate is concerned, there is no reason as to why the same could not have

been considered.

4. Per contra counsel for the respondents submitted that when an opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court, she did appear before the Committee and admitted that she had worked prior to year 2012-13 i.e. before the birth of her children. Further that, she had not worked since last five years. The said averment as made by her was recorded by the Committee in writing and was even signed by the petitioner.

5. Counsel submits that in view of the averment made by the petitioner, it was evident that the experience certificate as filed by her was a forged one. Specific pleadings to the said effect have been made in the reply which remains uncontroverted and hence, admitted.

6. No rejoinder to the reply has been filed. 7. Heard the counsels. Perused the record.

8. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned for the following reasons :

(i) Admittedly, the requisite experience period as per the advertisement was one year and the experience certificate as submitted by the petitioner, even if deemed to be valid, is for a period from July 2017 to May 2018, which does not complete the period of one year.

(ii) The experience certificate (Annexure-6) specifically reflect that it does not even bear the date of issuance or even the inward number. Validity of the said certificate is therefore clearly doubtful and could not have been considered.

(iii) The specific fact of the petitioner having admitted that she did not work after year 2012-13 having been raised in the reply and the same not been controverted/refuted by the petitioner, cannot be disbelieved.

(iv) Admittedly, the petitioner was never permitted to join and hence, interim order dated 05.07.2019 was never acted upon. The petitioner therefore never remained in job.

9. The writ petition is hence, dismissed.

10. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of (REKHA BORANA),J

21-manila/-