[2025:RJ-JP:47038] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11449/2025 Manoj Kumar Son Of Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village Rampura, Post Nathawatpura, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through, District Collector, District Sikar, Rajasthan. 2. The District Sainik Welfare Officer, District Sikar, Rajasthan. 3. The Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur Division, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. The Managing Director, Jaipur City Transport Corporation Limited (J.c.t.c.l.), Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaideep Singh For Respondent(s) : Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy. GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 20/11/2025 1. Instant Writ Petition is preferred with following prayer:- (i) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus, thereby directing the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to join as a vehicle Driver in District Sikar by disregarding the posts occupied on deputation which cannot be treated as a bar for regular appointment; (ii) Declare that deputationists cannot be counted against sanctioned regular posts for the purpose of denying appointment to the petitioner under the Martyr Quota; 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is recommended for appointment on the post of Driver in the office of District Collector, Sikar but the appointment was not issued as [2025:RJ-JP:47038] (2 of 3) [CW-11449/2025] out of 18 sanctioned posts, 10 drivers were working on regular basis whereas 8 other posts were filled-up by transfer on deputation. He further submits that the 8 posts which were filled- up by transfer from deputation, has to be considered as vacant post and the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on one of the 8 posts which were filled-up by way of temporary arrangement of deputation from other departments. He further submits that the District Collector has not rejected the candidature of present petitioner rather he requested for guidance from the Divisional Commissioner and same has not been answered so far. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the case of petitioner and submits that they have recommended the case of petitioner as he falls under the policy framed by the Department. 4. Having considered the submission, it is appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to both the District Collector and the Divisional Commissioner and with direction to them to decide the same in a time bound manner. 5. Considered the grievance raised herein, the petitioner is given a liberty to submit a representation to the respondents- Authority within a period of 30 days raising all grounds and the respondents-Authority are directed to consider and decide the representation after enquiry about grievances, raised by the petitioner but with a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 30 days from date of receipt of representation. After the decision, the respondents are under an obligation to communicate the decision to the petitioner either by way of speed post or through E-mail, if petitioner has provided E-mail in her [2025:RJ-JP:47038] (3 of 3) [CW-11449/2025] representation. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, she is at liberty to approach this Court with fresh petition. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition with pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /186