[2025:RJ-JP:36662-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 827/2004 1. Teja Ram son of Shri Balu Ram, aged about 36 years, R/o Kua Lakhyawali, Ward No. 10, Near Kisan Dharamkanta, V & P Udaipurvati, Distt. Jhunjhunu. 2. Shri Phool Chand Son of Shri Surja Ram, aged about 41 years, R/o Kua Lakhyawali, Ward No. 10, Near Kisan Dharamkanta, V & P Udaipurvati, Distt. Jhunjhunu. 3. Shri Kailash Daluka Son of Shri Bhagwan Sahai, aged about 40 years, R/o B-46, Anandpuri, Moti Dungri Road, Jaipur. 4. Hemant Kumar Sharma, Son of Shrigopal Sharma, Aged about 32 years, R/o 40, Vivekanand Marg, Laxmi Nagar, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur. 5. Satya Narain Saini, S/o Shri Chhitarmal Saini, aged about 28 years, R/o Near New Bus Stand, Samod, Via Chomu, Distt. Jaipur. 6. Kalu Ram Son of Shri Kalyan Mal, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Ramsinghpura, Post Khatupura, Distt. Sawaimadhopur. 7. Jai Singh Son of Shri Govardhan Singh, aged about 33 years, R/o Lili Pool, Narain Singh Circle, Sawai Ramsingh Road, Opp. Reserve Bank of India, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Opp. High Court Building, Jaipur. 3. The Member Secretary, Rajasthan State Backward Commission, 5, Gaurav Nagar, Civil Lines, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anita Aggarwal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anshul Ranga Ms. Anjali Ranga HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT [2025:RJ-JP:36662-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-827/2004] Judgment 10/09/2025 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the vires of Sections 7, 9 and 11 of the Rajasthan Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Act, 1999 (for short ‘the Act of 1999’), which has already been decided by this Court in the case of “Bhawani Singh and 17 Anr. Vs. State & Ors.” (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3271/2001), decided on 23.07.2002, wherein the Court in Para No. 211, has held as under:- “211 (i) Secs. 9 & 11 read in light of Sec.19 of the Act of 1999 are declared ultra vires the Constitution being violative of Arts. 14, 16 and 21 read with Arts. 39, 41 and 42 of the Constitution. (ii) The said provisions are otherwise inoperative for the reason of their apparent repugnancy with I.D. Act, 1947, which is a law made by Parliament in respect of subject matters enumerated in entries 22, 23 and 24 of Concurrent List, and field is exhaustively occupied by existing law and the State Legislation has not been reserved for consideration of the President and has not received his assent as required under Art. 254(2) of the Constitution. (iii) The following part of clause (e) of Sec. 2(v) is also declared ultra vires. “a society registered under any law relating to the registration of societies for the time being in force and receiving funds from the State Government either fully or partly for its maintenance, or any educational institution whether registered or no but receiving aid from the State Government.” (iv) As a consequence of declaration of Sec. 9 to be ultra vires, any direction or order issued solely on the basis of and with reference to Sec.9 for non-regularization or consequential termination of services cannot be sustained. [2025:RJ-JP:36662-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-827/2004] (v) Any order refusing claim to regularization and consequent termination as well as any claim to regularization can be made subject to remedial forums for adjudication as may be available under law. Sec. 11 being held ultra vires such claims cannot be refused to be adjudicated by the concerned forum by invoking Sec. 11. (vi) Likewise the claims to regularization, which have already been adjudicated and become final, there shall be no impediment in execution and implementation of such order, decree or award in accordance with law. (vii) Rest of the provisions of the Act, cannot be said to suffer from any such infirmity. Remaining provisions neither transgress the field in respect of which State Legislation is competent to make law nor can be said to be repugnant to any law made by Central Act in respect of subject matter for which Parliament is competent to make law. (viii) However, the aforesaid declaration would not mean that mere continuance for long period confers an indefeasible right in favour of the incumbent for regularization in all circumstances. It must depend on facts of each case. Regularization of any employee is obligation of employer only where such law long continuance as temporary employee is considered to be resulting in unfair labour practice or is a case of arbitrary, unreasonable action on the part of the employer in public service by not conferring regular appointment to a person which is otherwise found to be lawfully made or where incumbent has been appointed by the competent authority but there is some procedural flaw not affecting validity of appointment.” 2. In Bhawani Singh (supra), the Division Bench of this court has examined the provisions of the Act of 1999 and upheld the provision of Section 7 while declaring Sections 9 and 11 of the Act of 1999 as ultra vires to the Constitution. [2025:RJ-JP:36662-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-827/2004] 3. In view of the above, the present Civil Writ Petition is disposed of mutatis mutandis. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Amit/Ritu/1