Nadauti, District Karauli Raj v. The State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary

Ram Prasad Gurjar S/o Shri Hari Narayan Gurjar, aged about 43 years, resident of Village Gothda, Post Dalpura, Tehsil Nadauti, District Karauli Raj.

5. Jagdish Prasad Sharma S/o Late Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma, aged about 43 years, resident of Village Raysana, Tehsil Nadauti, District Karauli Raj.

6. Bahadur Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Sardar Singh Gurjar, aged about 44 years resident of Village Bada Wajidpur, Post Kaimri, Tehsil Nadauti, District Karauli Raj.

7. Mahendra Kumar Jain S/o Shri Madan Lal Jain, aged about 43 years, resident of Village Gadh Kheda, Tehsil Nadauti, District Karauli Raj.

8. Rajendra Prasad Sharma S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sharma, aged about 49 yerars, resident of Village Gadhkheda, Tehsil Nadauti, District Karauli.

9. Kamal Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Punya Ram Gurjar, aged about 41 years resident of Doi Ka Pura, Gudha Chandraji, Tehsil Nadauti, District Karauli.

10. Ramkesh Mali S/o Late Shri Mool Chand Mali, aged about 48 years resident of Village Rayasana, Tehsil Nadauti, District Karauli Raj.

11. Maharaj Singh S/o Shri Surgyan Singh Gurjar, aged about 42 years, resident of Village Sikandarpur, Tehsil Dandauti, District Karauli Raj.

12. Kadam Singh Meena S/o Shri Budya Ram Meena, aged about 41 years, R/o Village Paldi, Post Gadh Kheda, Tehsil Nadauti, District Karauli Raj.

13. Mukesh Kumar Khatana S/o Shri Badri Lal Khatana, aged [2025:RJ-JP:17904] (2 of 4) [CW-11375/2014] about 39 years, resdient of Village Bada Gaon, Tehsil Nadauti, District Karauli Raj. ----Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Department of Elementary Education Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kishan Yogi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saumil Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Gopal Krishna Sharma, AGC. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 28/04/2025

1. This joint writ petition has been filed by as many as 13 writ petitioners with a prayer to direct the respondents to give them appointment on any suitable post in any Government department as well as to direct the respondents to regularize the services of petitioners on any suitable post in any Government department as they are having experience of more than three years in teaching line.

2. Sh. Jai Kishan Yogi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the writ petitioners were initially engaged on honorarium basis as Instructor in Informal Education Centre earlier opened by the respondent-State Government, which were closed in the year 2001.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that all the petitioners have worked for more than three years. He [2025:RJ-JP:17904] (3 of 4) [CW-11375/2014] submits that other persons carrying out almost similar works have been given opportunity for being appointed in Government services, however, such opportunity has not been granted to the petitioners, which is rather hostile discrimination with them and the Government is under an obligation to either give new appointment to the petitioners or to regularize their services.

4. Counsel further submits that earlier also, some of the petitioners approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12229/2009 which was withdrawn by the petitioners with liberty to make a representation to the respondents, which was directed to be decided by speaking orders. Petitioners state that although the representation were rejected, yet they were not decided by any reasoned or speaking order.

5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the entire writ petition, the petitioners have not pointed out any right, much less than statutory right to seek appointment or regularization, hence, they are not entitled to invoke extra- ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents further states that the petitioners have admitted in their writ petition that the Informal Education Centre, where the petitioners were allegedly working as Instructors, have already been closed in the year 2001 and thereafter, they are not in service and hence, prayer for regularization is totally misconceived.

7. As per the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioners have also not stated in the writ petition as to whether, they have applied pursuant to any advertisement or not; nor they [2025:RJ-JP:17904] (4 of 4) [CW-11375/2014] have disclosed any Rule of the State Government which provides for any preference to the candidates, who were earlier working as Instructor in Informal Education Centre. Therefore, as per the learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition is totally vague and misdirected. Hence, it is liable to be rejected.

8. I have examined the record of the writ petition and carefully heard both the learned counsels.

9. It is a settled proposition of law that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be filed either by establishing any infringement of Constitutional Right or a statutory right, however, in the instant writ petition, the writ petitioners have utterly failed to point out any right, whatsoever, so as to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

10. The prayers made in the writ petition by the petitioners are totally evasive and not specific. General directions, without pointing out any Rule or recruitment process has been sought. Rejection of representation earlier submitted by the petitioners pursuant to directions given in earlier writ petition have also not been put to challenge in the instant writ petition.

11. Hence, under these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere in the instant writ petition filed by the writ petitioners and the same is hereby dismissed.

12. All pending application(s) stands disposed of. DAKSH/217 (ANAND SHARMA),J