[2026:RJ-JD:8628-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1860/2025

1. Mukut Bihari Sharma S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ward No. 21, Ajmer Road, Madanganj, Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.).

2. Mahaveer Singh Khidiya S/o Shri Madan Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 350, Shiv Dayal Charan Ki Dhani, Khorandi, Tehsil Nanwa, Khorandi, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director And Joint Secretary, Directorate Of Local Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The District Collector-Cum Chairman, District Level Executive Committee, Day-Nulm, Ajmer.

4. The Project Director, Directors Of Local Self Department, Jaipur.

5. The Principal Secretary, Day-Nulm, State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

6. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Housing And Urban Affairs, Govt. Of India, New Delhi.

7. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ajmer.

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Advocate-cum-

AAG assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot.

Mr. Nimesh Suthar HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

16/02/2026

1. This Special Appeal (Writ) has been taken up in the second round.

2. Counsel for the appellants has chosen not to appear even in the second round.

3. Challenge in this special appeal (writ) is to the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in a bunch of writ petitions led by SBCWP No.13659/2025 entitled “Obedulla Khan and Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.”; wherein, the learned Single Judge has made the following observation:

“xxxxxxxx

14. Interestingly in the present petitions, a prayer for release of salary has been made and that too without impleading the placement agency once again. Further the fact of a finding having already been recorded against the petitioners in their earlier writ petitions has clearly been concealed and the same is on the face of it, malafide. The malafide intent is also clear from the fact that the earlier petitions were filed at Jaipur Bench, the petitioners being the residents of Jaipur jurisdiction and further being employees of the offices of Jaipur jurisdiction. The present petitions have malafidely been filed at Principal Seat. It is crystal clear that the petitioners misused the process of the Court firstly by filing the present petitions before the Principal Seat despite they being falling under Jaipur jurisdiction. Secondly, by concealing the fact of the writ petitions as filed by them before the Jaipur Bench having already been dismissed. Thirdly, by filing the present petitions again without impleading the placement agency despite a finding recorded against them in the earlier writ petitions. And fourthly, praying for release of salary in the present petitions despite a finding recorded in the earlier writ petitions that the liability to pay the salary to the petitioners was of the placement agency.

xxxxxxxxxx”

4. In view of the aforesaid observations made by the learned Single Judge, which are based on the factual matrix of the case and which the appellants have not been able to demonstrate as being unjustified or incorrect, no case for interference is made out. The facts, as noted above, are in themselves sufficient to warrant dismissal of the present appeal. It is also noted that the learned Single Judge had initially dismissed the writ petitions with costs; however, upon the matter being mentioned again at the request of the Bar, the learned Single Judge, showing leniency, modified the order and dismissed the writ petitions simpliciter. Despite such indulgence, the present appeal has been preferred on the assertion that the writ petitions could have been filed at the Principal Seat, even though the jurisdiction admittedly lay with the Jaipur Bench. The conduct of the appellan