##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:3934]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 618/2026

Vishnu Avtar - Safai Karamchari (Sweeper) Son Of Shri Prem

Chand, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Mevdakala (Tehsil

Kekri) District Ajmer (Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director Secondary

Education, Directorate - Bikaner.

2. The Collector, Ajmer District Ajmer.

3. The District Education Officer, Ajmer.

4. The Principal, Government Senior Secondary School,

Mevdakala (Tehsil Kekri), District Ajmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Kishore Saksena

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment

28/01/2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

is constrained to file the present writ petition as the legal notice

dated 28.10.2025 sent by the petitioner to the respondents was

not considered.

2. In a recent order dated 02.02.2024 in the case of Pawan

Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.

1665/2024; Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:5792), considering

that the representation filed by the litigants were not being

addressed by the State and its instrumentalities, this Court

observed as under:

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:08:56 PM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 08:32:05 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:3934] (2 of 3) [CW-618/2026]

“Considering the arguments advanced above, this Court

deems it appropriate to note that the State, by constitution

as well as practice is a welfare-state. The State, whilst

exercising governance over it’s citizens, is expected to

protect and promote the citizen’s social and economic well-

being, based on the ideals of equal and due opportunity and

public responsibility for citizens who find it difficult and/or are

unable to bare the necessities of life.

With the aforementioned duty, comes the inherent task

of being the ‘first-responders’ to the statements of grievance

put forth by its citizens, albeit in the capacity of State

employees or otherwise.

At the same time, it is noted that the writ court, whilst

exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India, employs a discretionary approach,

where in the presence of an alternate and efficacious

remedy, the Courts often ponder in delegating the dispute to

the said alternate authority, better equipped with experts or

otherwise, to entertain the dispute. Resultantly, in service

matters, the primary expert and/or the body possessing the

complete acumen regarding the issue is the State itself,

being one of the parties to the litigation before the Court.

Therefore, by assiduously addressing the grievance put

forth by the aggrieved employees and acting as first

responders, the State can very well do itself a favour and

reduce the litigation before it substantially. It goes without

saying that the State is patently/obviously not under the

responsibility to address the representations positively in

favour of the aggrieved-employees. Rather, the only

requirement it ought to fulfill is that of providing an ear to

their grievance, and thereafter pass appropriate speaking

orders in compliance of the principles of natural justice,

which may or may not address the aggrieved employee’s

concerns to their liking. However, by said the careful

consideration of the representations received by the State,

even if a fraction of the grievance(s) are resolved, of which

the cost is born by the State exchequer as well as the

litigating employees, the litigation before the Courts wherein

the State is a party shall reduce immensely.

Even otherwise, the State must take-away/embody the

spirit of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and make a

genuine attempt to redress the employee’s grievances by

way of speaking orders, passed in response to the

representations so preferred by them.

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 12:08:56 PM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 08:32:05 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:3934] (3 of 3) [CW-618/2026]

It also goes without saying that rendering the

representations preferred by the aggrieved employees mute,

by way of non-consideration