##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:54222-DB]

REPORTABLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 891/2026 CNR: RJHC010553512026 | URN: SAW / 1752U / 2026

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through- The Principal Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Govt. Of Rajasthan, State Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus

1. Dr. Ramakant Soni S/o Shri Chotmal Soni, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Sahi Kripa Society, Near Sarla Birla Kalyan Mandap, New Colony, Kutchaman City, District- Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Presently Veterinary Officer At Veterinary Hospital Aakoda, Deedwana, District- Nagaur, Rajasthan).

2. Dr. Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About

31 Years, Village-Dilki-Jatan Tehsil-Nohar, District - Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. (Presently Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital Utradabas Bhadra District-

Hanumangarh).

3. Dr. Shahdab Ahmed Khan S/o Shri Iqbal Ahmed Khan, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 23/195, Shastri Nagar, Mohammidia Colony, Bhilwara, Rajasthan. (Presently Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital Danthal, District- Bhilwara).

4. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravindra Jala for Mr. S. S. Ladrecha For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. P. Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA

Judgment

03/11/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present Special Appeal arises out of a judgment rendered by learned Single Bench dated 28.11.2025 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4217/2020, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners-respondents was allowed directing the appellants to regularize their services on the post of Veterinary Officer.

3. Briefly noted facts relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the petitioners-respondents, who were holding the requisite qualifications for the post of Veterinary Officer, applied for appointment on such post in pursuance of the recruitment advertisement dated 14.03.2013, whereby, 500 posts under Rule 26 of Rules of 1963 were advertised. In pursuance of the selection process held by the appellants, the petitioners-respondents were appointed on the post of Veterinary Officer in the year 2013. The appellants, after three years, abruptly terminated the services of petitioners-respondents. The petitioners-respondents challenged the termination order before this Court by filing writ petition and those writ petitions were ultimately allowed by this Court. The petitioners-respondents, in these circumstances, continued to serve the Department on the post of Veterinary Officer. The petitioners-respondents in the year 2020 approached the appellant-Department for regularizing their services but after being denied the same, the petitioners-respondents approached this Court by way of filing the writ petition. Learned Single Bench, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the writ petition vide order dated 28.11.2025 directing the appellants to regularize the services of the petitioners-respondents on the post of Veterinary Officer. Hence, the present appeal has been filed.

4. The learned Additional Advocate General vehemently submits before this Court that the learned Single Bench was not right in allowing the writ petition as the petitioners-respondents were appointed only on urgent temporary basis under Rule 26 and since they were not regularly selected and appointed on the post of Veterinary Officer, therefore, their services are not entitled to be regularized.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the services of persons, who had been irregularly appointed, could be regularized only upon due consideration of their respective cases in the light of the principles laid down therein.