[2025:RJ-JP:16411] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5600/2025 1. Ajeet Singh Choudhary S/o Netra Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 44, R.k. Puram Colony, Khatipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Ramratan Bishnoi S/o Ganpatram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Vpo Kudsu, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner, Rajasthan. 3. Shiv Kumar Meharda S/o Hariram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 7/55, Mukta Prasad Nagar, Bikaner, Rajasthan. 4. Pooran Singh Shekhawat S/o Mangoo Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 43 Years, R/o C-28, Gandhi Colony, Pawanpuri, Bikaner, Rajasthan. 5. Om Prakash S/o Kana Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Teu, Post Sudsar, Tehsil Sridungargahr, District Bikaner, Rajasthan. 6. Bhanwer Lal Sharma S/o Babu Lal Sharma, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Vpo Rajedu, Tehsil Sridungargarh, District Bikaner, Rajasthan. 7. Babu Lal Dhattarwal S/o Rajaram Dhatarwal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Rekh, Meghana, Bikaner, Rajasthan. 8. Sarjit Singh Tanwar S/o Amar Singh Tanwar, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Panera, Post Banar, Tehsil Kotutli, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 9. Rajendra Gadwal S/o Prabhati Lal Jat, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Vpo Bhankari, Vaya Rajnota, Tehsil Paota, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 10. Ishwar Singh Yadav S/o Shri Ram Yadav, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Momanpur, Postjaguwas, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan. 11. Dharmpal Arya S/o Ramji Lal Arya, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Dhani Jyanki Das Wali, Bhuri Bharaj, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Administrative Reforms (Group-3), Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The Director And Paden Joint Secretary, Treasury And Accounts Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:16411] (2 of 4) [CW-5600/2025] Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5601/2025 1. Mahaveer Prasad S/o Laxman Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Mangalpura, Banura, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan. 2. Gajanand Gurjar S/o Ramlal Gurjar, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Gurjaron Ki Dhani, Rulyana Patti, Sikar, Rajasthan. 3. Mahendra Kulariya S/o Laxman Singh Kulariya, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Bhopji Garh, District Sikar, Rajasthan. 4. Mahesh Kumar S/o Ram Karan, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Swami Ki Dhani, Rajpura, Laxmangarh, Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Finance Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. State Of Rajasthan Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Administrative Reforms (Group-3), Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The Director And Paden Joint Secretary, Treasury And Accounts Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 4. Rakesh Kumar S/ Trilok Singh (Roll No. 733602), Through Director And Paden Joint Secretary, Treasury And Accounts Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 17/04/2025 1. Counsel for petitioners has raised an issue in his argument that posting to the petitioners on the post of Junior Accountant has been accorded in far situated Districts than their home Districts that too without ensuing the process of counselling, which is mandatory as per Circular dated 18.05.2020 issued by the [2025:RJ-JP:16411] (3 of 4) [CW-5600/2025] Government of Rajasthan (Annx.5). Clause (1) and (2) of the Circular reads as under:- "1.fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh }kjk dkmalfyax dh dk;Zokgh esa vkoafVr vH;fFkZ;ksa esa ls loZizFke izkFkfedrk ls fnO;kaxtu] fo/kok] ifjR;Drk] ,dy efgyk] HkwriwoZ lSfud] mRd`"V f[kykM+h o ifr&ifRu izdj.k ds vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ofj;rkØe ls] miyC/k fjfDr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij dkmalfyax esa cqyk;k tk;sxkA 2.'ks"k vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ofj;rk Øe ls dkmalfyax esa cqyk;k tkdj fjfDr ds vk/kkj ij izFke fu;qfDr dk ftyk@ftys esa LFkku] tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks] dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k tk;sxkA" 2. In order to appreciate and consider the contention of counsel for petitioners, this Court perused the pleadings of writ petition, but petitioners have nowhere pleaded such averments that they have been given posting without ensuing the counselling process. 3. Having faced with the situation of non-coherence between the contentions made by counsel for petitioners and pleadings made in the writ petition, counsel for petitioners made a persuasive attempt before this Court to contend that the petitioners have pleaded to grant of posting to the petitioners is in violation to the Circular dated 18.05.2020 and submits that petitioners despite being higher in merit, have not been given posting as per their merit and have been discriminated with the other similar or less meritorious candidates, who have been given posting at their home District or at their desired place. 4. This Court is of the considered opinion that as far as the alternate contention of counsel for petitioners, as made and noted in foregoing paras is concerned, no details/particulars have been placed before this Court in the instant writ petitions to consider the same on merits, however, counsel for petitioners prays for to submit a detailed representation before the respondents, raising their grievance. [2025:RJ-JP:16411] (4 of 4) [CW-5600/2025] 5. In that view of the matter, the instant writ petitions are disposed of with the liberty to petitioners to make a representation before the respondents pointing out their grievance and violation of the Circular dated 18.05.2020. 6. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/20&21