[2026:RJ-JP:2716]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3711/2003 Dharam Singh Saini S/o Shri Chotilal Saini, Resident of Khijurwara-ka-Para, Near Bhaga-ka-Hanumanji, P.O. Karoli, Tehsil Hindaun, District Karauli.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Commercial Taxation Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxation, Kara Bhawan, Jaipur. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Zone II Commercial Taxation, (Administration), Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. P. Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manaswita Nakhwaal, AAAG with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore, AAAG for Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

21/01/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner and seeking directions to pay to the petitioner equal pay for equal work in regular pay scale of Class IV employee, who has been engaged on muster-roll daily wage basis since April, 1994 @ Rs.9/- per day and has completed services for more than three decades and has continuously discharged duties of a perennial and essential nature. The petitioner further seeks consequential service benefits, contending that the prolonged denial of regularization is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles

14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.

2. The facts, which are largely undisputed, reveal that the petitioner was initially engaged by the respondent department to meet administrative and functional requirements. Though, the engagement was described as temporary, the petitioner has continued in service uninterruptedly for several years and has performed duties identical in nature to those discharged by regularly appointed employees. The petitioner possesses the requisite educational qualifications prescribed for the post and has worked under the direct control and supervision of the respondents. Despite repeated representations, the respondents have not taken any steps to regularize the petitioner’s services.

3. Per contra, it has been submitted on behalf of the Respondents that the petitioner’s engagement was purely temporary/part time and does not confer any right to regularization. Regularization is contingent upon the existence of sanctioned posts and adherence to applicable service rules, and cannot be granted merely on the basis of continuity of service. Moreso, petitioner was not given assurance for appointment to the aforesaid post and for such appointment no such proposal has been sent. The State has acted in accordance with the rules, and there is no illegality or arbitrariness in denying regularization. Granting regularization outside the prescribed framework would undermine structured recruitment, budgetary discipline, and merit-based selection. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled, and the writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

4. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner, having rendered long and continuous service while performing duties of a regular and perennial nature, is entitled to regularization, and whether the refusal of the respondents to consider such regularization withstands constitutional scrutiny.

5. At the threshold, it is necessary to reiterate that public employment is governed by constitutional mandates of equality and fairness enshrined under Articles 14 and 16. The law is well settled that regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that appointments made in flagrant violation of recruitment rules cannot be sustained merely on the basis of length of service. However, it is equally well established that constitutional principles do not permit the State to exploit labour by keeping employees in a state of perpetual temporariness while extr