Rajasthan High Court Closes 2017 Service Dispute Following Petitioner Absence

In a recent order, the High Court of Rajasthan (Jodhpur Bench) has brought an end to a long-pending service matter, dismissing a writ petition filed by nineteen contractual computer operators. The case, Bajrang Lal Modi and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. , which had been pending since 2017, was closed after the petitioners failed to make an appearance before the court on two consecutive scheduled hearings.

Background of the Dispute

The petitioners, a group of nineteen individuals previously engaged as contractual computer operators, had originally approached the High Court in 2017 to challenge their sudden discontinuance from service. Their grievances were directed at various government entities, including the Finance Budget Department and several District Collectors across Rajasthan, alleging grievances regarding their abrupt termination from their respective roles in April 2017.

Proceedings and The Court's Intervention

The matter was listed before Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal on May 12, 2026. Recognizing the age of the petition, the Court initially provided the petitioners an opportunity to present their case. However, when the case was called, there was no representation for the petitioners.

In a move prioritizing judicial economy while maintaining procedural fairness, the Court granted the petitioners an additional opportunity to appear on May 15, 2026.

Key Observations

The frustration regarding the lack of engagement from the petitioners was evident in the Court's order, which noted:

• "This writ petition pertains to discontinuance of the petitioners on the post of contractual computer operators since April, 2017."
• "None appears for the petitioners even in the second round."
• "In view thereof, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution."

Final Decision and Judicial Implication

The final order, delivered on May 15, 2026, by Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal, explicitly dismissed the writ petition for "non-prosecution." By dismissing the case on these grounds, the Court has effectively closed the door on this specific litigation.

For legal practitioners, this serves as a reminder of the court's expectation regarding procedural diligence. Regardless of the merit of the initial claim, the inability of petitioners or their legal counsel to attend hearings can lead to the dismissal of even long-standing cases, highlighting the necessity of maintaining active engagement in litigation to avoid such finality.