[2025:RJ-JP:39375-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 938/2023 Dhan Singh S/o Shri Inderjeet Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village And Post Nigohi, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur, Presently Working On The Post Of Constable (Farash) In Crpf At Group Centre-2 Dig Office Range, Ajmer (Raj.). ----Appellant Versus 1. The Union Of India, Through Secretary, Govt. Of India , Ministry Of Home Affair, New Delhi. 2. The Additional Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Group Centre-2, Central Reserve Police Force, Fai Sagar Road, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Brahma Prakash For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumit Teterwal Sr. CGPC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 24/09/2025 This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner challenging the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 1998 the appellant-original writ petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Constable and on appointment being denied to him, he approached the learned Single Judge of this Court by filing a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6243/1998, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated [2025:RJ-JP:39375-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-938/2023] 12.02.2004 directing the respondents to give appointment to the appellant-writ petitioner on the post of Constable along with consequential benefits. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12.02.2004 came to be challenged by the respondents before the Division Bench of this Court by filing appeal and on dismissal of their appeal they approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP which was also dismissed. Thereafter medical examination of the appellant-writ petitioner was conducted and he was found medically unfit. When appointment was denied to him, he approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal which was disposed of granting liberty to him to submit a representation for seeking appointment in the office of desk job, vide order dated 28.07.2017, which reads as under :- “Shri K. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel states that the petitioner will be given employment in an office at a desk job, if he makes a representation to that effect within a period of four weeks from today. However, no back wages will be given to the petitioner.” In pursuance to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appellant-writ petitioner was given appointment on the post of Constable (Farash) Desk Job and he joined in the year 2018 and after three years of joining he again filed a writ petition seeking pay fixation, seniority at par with similarly situated person namely Mukesh Baboo. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner observed in its order dated 01.06.2023 as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:39375-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-938/2023] “5. This fact is not in dispute that the earlier round of litigation, directions were issued by this Court to appoint the petitioner on the post of Constable GD vide order dated 12.02.2004 and subsequently appeals filed against the above order, were dismissed by the Division Bench and Hon’ble Apex Court and the petitioner was medically examined. This fact is also not in dispute that the petitioner was found medically unfit to get the appointment on the post of Constable GD, however the case of the petitioner was considered to appoint him on the post of Desk Job by directions issued by the Apex Court and in compliance of the directions issued by the Apex Court, appointment was given to the petitioner by order dated 08.03.2018 with certain terms and conditions. It appears that the petitioner was satisfied with the terms and conditions and he has not challenged the same in this petition. Now the petitioner is estopped to claim any parity with Mukesh Baboo as Mukesh Baboo was given appointment way back in the year 2003 in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court. Because the said Mukesh Baboo was found medically fit, while in the instant case the petitioner was found medically unfit, however by adopting sympathetic approach, the respondents gave him appointment to work on desk. 6. In view of the reasons stated above, this petition is found to be misconceived and devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed.” We have gone through the record as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge and we are in complete in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We have also considered the fact that Mukesh Baboo was found medically fit whereas the appellant-writ petitioner was found medically unfit by the respondents. We have also considered the fact that the petitioner was given the desk job on the concession made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In our considered view, since the petitioner has been given appointment by the respondents in the year 2018, therefore, he [2025:RJ-JP:39375-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-938/2023] will be entitled for the benefits as per applicable rules only after the date of joining the job. We find no error committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition vide order dated 01.06.2023. The appeal is therefore, dismissed accordingly. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J ANIL SHARMA /86