Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr. Mohd. Waseem Khan Zai vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:50631]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4217/2020
1. Dr. Mohd. Waseem Khan Zai S/o Mohd. Sharif Zai, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o 71, J.k. Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur,
Rajastha. (Presently Veterinary Officer At District
Veterinary Mobile Unit, Jodhpur).
2. Dr. Ramakant Soni S/o Shri Chotmal Singh, 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 Ceterinary
Hospital Aakoda, Deedwana, District- Nagaur, Rajasthan).
3. Dr. Vijay Singh Godara S/o Shri Dev Lal Ji Godara, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Vill. And Post- Barwali, Tehsil Nohar,
District- Hanumangarh. Rajasthan. (Presently Veterinary
Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital Khuliya, Tehsil- Nohar,
District- Hanumangarh).
4. 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).
5. 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).
6. Dr. Narendra Singh S/o Shri Asoo Singh Shekhawat, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o H. No. 402, Kailashpuri, Bikaner,
Rajasthan. Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Badariya, Tehsil-
Pokhran, Distt- Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
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.
3. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer,
Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.P. Sharma
Mr. Abhimanyu Khatri
Mr. Dalpat Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravindra Jhala for
Mr. S.S. Ladrecha
(D.B. SAW/740/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Uploaded onon02/12/2025
(Downloaded 02/12/2025atat11:01:19
09:04:29AM)
PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50631] (2 of 10) [CW-4217/2020]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 28/11/2025
ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 21/11/2025
BY THE COURT:-
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of appropriate writs to safeguard their legitimate rights emanating from their long, unbroken, and substantive engagement as Veterinary Officers on sanctioned and vacant posts. Despite the unequivocal directions of this Court in its judgment dated 19.01.2017 and the binding mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 495/2020, the respondents continue to subject the petitioners to arbitrary annual extensions coupled with erratic disbursement of salary. The petitioners, therefore, beseech this Court's intervention for continuity of service, consideration for regularisation, and timely payment of all consequential service benefits.
2. Briefly stated, the writ petition was originally instituted by seven petitioners. During its pendency, Petitioner No. 7, Dr. Naresh Nagar, unfortunately expired, and his name was deleted vide order dated 03.03.2023. Consequently, six petitioners remained on record, and as of now, only three Dr. Ramakant Soni (P-2), Dr. Surendra Kumar (P-4), and Dr. Shahdab Ahmed Khan (P-5) seek the indulgence of this Court, the others having already selected through RPSC.
(D.B. SAW/740/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon02/12/2025 (Downloaded 02/12/2025atat11:01:19 09:04:29AM) PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50631] (3 of 10) [CW-4217/2020] 2.1 The petitioners possess B.V.Sc. & A.H. degrees from recognized institutions and are duly registered with the Rajasthan State Veterinary Council, rendering them fully qualified under the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1963'). Owing to an acute manpower exigency, the respondents issued an Urgent Temporary Basis (UTB) Recruitment Advertisement on 14.03.2013 for approximately 500 posts under Rule 26 of the Rules of 1963. Upon being duly recommended by the Selection Committee with RPSC approval, the petitioners were appointed vide order dated 19.09.2013, joining service by 29.09.2013, and have continued since uninterruptedly, albeit temporarily and without regular pay. 2.2 Simultaneously, RPSC notified a regular recruitment on 02.05.2013 for 525 posts. The petitioners qualified the written exam, appeared for interviews, and secured the minimum 50% qualifying marks, yet were not selected. The process became embroiled in prolonged litigation, leaving several posts unfilled. Their services were abruptly terminated on 30.06.2016, prompting multiple writ petitions wherein interim protection was granted, thereby ensuring continuity of service. Extensions continued, including via order dated 30.11.2016.
2.3 This Court, in its judgment dated 19.01.2017, recorded that 150 out of 525 posts remained unfilled and directed their filling from the reserve list while continuing the petitioners in service with regular salary. Non-compliance ensued, triggering contempt proceedings. The matter ascended to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, (D.B. SAW/740/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon02/12/2025 (Downloaded 02/12/2025atat11:01:19 09:04:29AM) PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50631] (4 of 10) [CW-4217/2020] which on 21.01.2020 remanded it for determining SC/ST backlog vacancies. Upon remand, this Court identified 14 available posts, eventually allocating one to Dr. Narendra Singh (P-6), who joined on 29.09.2023. Similarly situated petitioners, however, remained excluded.
2.4 Proceedings were further delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and only on 10.08.2021 was the controversy addressed, pursuant to which Dr. Narendra Singh alone secured appointment. The remaining petitioners despite identical merit received neither regularisation nor appointment under Recruitment-2013. Their salary continued to be irregular, contingent upon repetitive RPSC approvals. Earlier writ petitions for pay parity were partly allowed on 20.01.2020, granting petitioners Minimum of Pay Scale under Jagjit Singh, while keeping the issue of regularisation open. 2.5. Subsequently, Recruitment-2019 for 900 posts was notified on 22.10.2019. Though all petitioners secured above 50% marks, only two Dr. Waseem Khan Zai (P-1) and Dr. Vijay Singh Godara (P-3) were selected and joined in December 2024. Thus, three petitioners (P-2, P-4 & P-5) remain in service without regularisation despite 12+ years of continuous duty on sanctioned posts.
3. Learned counsel submits, at the outset, that the writ petition has now become infructuous for Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, and 6, as they have already secured substantive appointments through subsequent recruitment processes. Thus, the present lis survives only for the remaining three petitioners, who continue to serve on (D.B. SAW/740/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon02/12/2025 (Downloaded 02/12/2025atat11:01:19 09:04:29AM) PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50631] (5 of 10) [CW-4217/2020] sanctioned posts for more than twelve years without regularisation.
3.1. Counsel contends that after the matter was remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 21.01.2020, the pending contempt petitions were converted into writ miscellaneous applications. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic caused protracted delays, resulting in a final adjudication only on 10.08.2021. Pursuant thereto, Petitioner No. 6 alone received appointment in September 2023, leaving the other petitioners despite identical eligibility and merit without any consequential benefit.
3.2. It is urged that all petitioners had secured 50% or more qualifying marks in the Veterinary Officer Recruitment-2013, and were thus entitled to consideration for appointment in terms of the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Yet the respondents neither regularised them nor ensured timely disbursement of salary, which remained contingent upon repetitive approvals from the RPSC.
3.3. The counsel further submits that earlier writ petitions seeking parity in pay were partly allowed vide order dated 20.01.2020, granting the petitioners Minimum of Pay Scale under the law declared in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh. The present writ petition, therefore, survives only on the limited issue of regularisation.
3.4. Despite participating and securing more than 50% marks in the subsequent Recruitment-2019 for 900 posts, only two petitioners namely Dr. Waseem Khan Zai and Dr. Vijay Singh (D.B. SAW/740/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon02/12/2025 (Downloaded 02/12/2025atat11:01:19 09:04:29AM) PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50631] (6 of 10) [CW-4217/2020] Godara were selected and have since joined service. Consequently, three petitioners remain unabsorbed despite long tenure, continuous work, and demonstrable merit. 3.5. Counsel emphasizes that the petitioners were initially appointed under Rule 26 of the Rules of1963, on an Urgent Temporary Basis for one year, but their tenure has been extended continuously since 29.09.2013 solely due to persistent vacancies. The respondents themselves have filled further UTB posts through appointment orders dated 30.08.2022, 14.11.2022, and 11.06.2025, confirming that hundreds of posts remain vacant. Yet the petitioners, despite discharging full-time duties on sanctioned posts for over a decade, have been denied permanence. 3.6. Reliance is placed upon the decisions in Vinod Kumar (2024 INSC 332), Jaggo v. Union of India, Dharam Singh, Vijay Kumar Joshi, Om Prakash, and Smt. Uji Devi, which unequivocally hold that long-term ad hoc employees serving on sanctioned posts for over ten years are entitled to regularisation from the date of completion of ten years, regular pay scale, and permanent status without undergoing further probation. 3.7. Lastly, counsel submits that the continued denial of regularisation is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioners have a legitimate expectation, fortified by judicial precedents and their unblemished service record, to be granted regularisation, full pay scale, arrears, and permanent status, therefore, the instant writ petition may be allowed.
(D.B. SAW/740/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon02/12/2025 (Downloaded 02/12/2025atat11:01:19 09:04:29AM) PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50631] (7 of 10) [CW-4217/2020]
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits, with due candor, that the State does not dispute the fact that out of the six petitioners, three have already been extended the reliefs sought, either through regular recruitment or pursuant to judicial directions. It is therefore acknowledged that the claims of Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, and 6 stand satisfied.
4.1. Counsel further states that the respondents have no objection if, in order to maintain parity and uniformity of treatment, the remaining petitioners are also extended benefits commensurate with those already regularised, subject to their satisfying the requisite eligibility criteria and availability of sanctioned vacancies. The respondents clarify that such concession is made in the spirit of fairness, without admitting any procedural infirmity on their part.
4.2. It is emphasized that the State has at all times acted within the confines of statutory rules and constitutional norms; however, if this Court considers the remaining petitioners entitled to similar relief, the respondents shall abide by and implement any such direction promptly and in good faith.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and minutely gone through the material placed on record.
5.1. Upon a meticulous consideration of the rival submissions and a comprehensive perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the controversy now stands substantially narrowed. It is an admitted position that Petitioner No.1 Dr. Waseem Khan Zai, Petitioner No.3 Dr. Vijay (D.B. SAW/740/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon02/12/2025 (Downloaded 02/12/2025atat11:01:19 09:04:29AM) PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50631] (8 of 10) [CW-4217/2020] Singh Godara, and Petitioner No.6 Dr. Narendra Singh have already been accorded the benefit of substantive appointment and regularisation, either through the recruitment processes subsequently undertaken or pursuant to judicial directions issued in the preceding rounds of litigation. Accordingly, the writ petition, to that extent, stands rendered infructuous, and the lis now survives only in respect of Petitioner Nos. 2, 4, and 5, who continue to serve on sanctioned and vacant posts for a period exceeding twelve years.
5.2. This Court cannot remain oblivious to the fact that the three surviving petitioners stand on an identical factual and legal footing as those already regularised. Their appointments emanated from the same selection process conducted under Rule 26 of the Rules of 1963; they possess the same qualifications; they have rendered uninterrupted service for over a decade; and they have secured the minimum 50% qualifying marks in the regular recruitment process. The principle of parity, deeply embedded in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, therefore compels uniformity in the extension of service benefits. 5.3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions including State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148, Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., Civil Appeal No. 8558/2018, and most recently Vinod Kumar v. Union of India (2024 INSC
332), has consistently held that long-term ad hoc, contractual or temporary employees who have served for ten years or more on (D.B. SAW/740/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon02/12/2025 (Downloaded 02/12/2025atat11:01:19 09:04:29AM) PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50631] (9 of 10) [CW-4217/2020] duly sanctioned posts and whose appointments are not tainted by illegality, acquire a legitimate expectation of regularisation. The Supreme Court has further clarified in Jaggo v. Union of India (SLP (C) No. 5580/2024) that denial of regularisation to employees who have continuously discharged full duties on sanctioned posts amounts to manifest arbitrariness. 5.4. In the present case, the petitioners' uninterrupted service since 29.09.2013, the persistent existence of vacancies, and the State's continued resort to Urgent Temporary Basis (UTB) appointments evidenced through successive orders dated 30.08.2022, 14.11.2022, and 11.06.2025 clearly demonstrate that the petitioners were not merely engaged to meet a transient exigency, but have been performing core, perennial, and substantive duties of the cadre post. In such circumstances, the denial of regularisation to only three among a homogeneous cohort would be violative of the equality clause and repugnant to established jurisprudence.
5.5. This Court also notes with emphasis that the petitioners have already been extended Minimum of Pay Scale, pursuant to the judgment dated 20.01.2020 in line with Jagjit Singh (supra), which implicitly acknowledges the substantive nature of duties performed by them. The remaining grievance pertains solely to regularisation and consequential benefits. 5.6. In view of the above legal and factual landscape, this Court is persuaded that denying regularisation to Petitioner Nos. 2, 4, and 5 would be arbitrary, discriminatory, and antithetical to (D.B. SAW/740/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon02/12/2025 (Downloaded 02/12/2025atat11:01:19 09:04:29AM) PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50631] (10 of 10) [CW-4217/2020] constitutional guarantees. Thus, the writ petition, in so far as it concerns Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, and 6, stands dismissed as infructuous, their services having already been regularised. In respect of Petitioner Nos. 2, 4, and 5, this Court, while maintaining parity with Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, and 6, holds that they are entitled to the same relief.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent it relates to their claim for regularisation, and it is hereby directed that their services shall stand regularised from the date on which they completed their 10 years' of service computing from the date of their initial date of joining in the service [with all consequential benefits .
6.1. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above, and all pending applications, including the stay petition, stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J 176-Mamta/-
(D.B. SAW/740/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon02/12/2025 (Downloaded 02/12/2025atat11:01:19 09:04:29AM) PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)