[2025:RJ-JP:42887] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14518/2025 Smt. Mamta Kumari Wife Of Late Shri Satyendra Pal Singh, Daughter Of Shri Mohan Singh, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Idgah Colony, Bapu Nagar, Kumher Gate, Bharatpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Board Of Revenue, Through Its Registrar, Rajasthan, Ajmer. 4. Joint Secretary, Department Of Personnel (Ka-Iv-Ii) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 5. District Collector, Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Bansal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 06/10/2025 1. Instant Writ Petition is preferred by petitioner with following prayer:- “It is, therefore prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by appropriate writ, order or directions, the impugned order dated 10.09.2025 may kindly be quashed and set aside. That the respondents may be directed to exempt the petitioner from the condition of passing of departmental examination by giving benefit of provisions of rules for exemption from departmental examination. That the respondents may further be directed to allow the petitioner for work continue on the post of Naib Tehsildar with regular salary and all benefits.” [2025:RJ-JP:42887] (2 of 7) [CW-14518/2025] 2. The fact of the matter is that present petitioner was appointed as Naib Tehsildar on a probation period of 2 years under the Rajasthan Tehsildar Services Rules, 1956 by order dated 21.04.2021, in the category of “BC, WE, WD, RG”. One of the condition of recruitment for the post of Naib Tehsildar was that the petitioner is required to pass a departmental examination under Rule 34-A of Rajasthan Tehsildar Services Rules, 1956 and Rule 19 of Rajasthan Civil Services Departmental Examination, Rules 1959 but the petitioner has failed to qualify in said examination after three opportunities so her services were terminated by order dated 10.09.2025. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner while referring Departmental Examination Rules, 1955 submitted that petitioner was in category of widow and the competent authority may exempt her from passing the examination. He also submitted that if the petitioner has failed to qualify in the examination then it is necessary that an opportunity of hearing be granted to her so as to explain her case. He also submitted that one more opportunity be granted to appear in said examination. He also submitted that the Administrative Department may exempt the petitioner from rigor of rule but without exercising such authority the services of petitioner were discharged. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that after death of husband of petitioner she was appointed on the post of Head Mistress under the Rajsthan Education Services Rules and in pursuant to advertisement of RPSC she has filed an application for Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Joint Competitive Examination, 2018 wherein she was successful and her service [2025:RJ-JP:42887] (3 of 7) [CW-14518/2025] record is unblemished. He also submitted that after dismissal of present petitioner by order dated 10.09.2025 from the post of Tehsildar, the petitioner could not be reverted to her earlier post where she was working as Head Mistress under the Rajasthan Education Services Rules. 5. Instant Writ Petition is preferred only to quash order dated 10.09.2025 whereby services of petitioner were terminated from the post of Tehsildar. The petitioner has not prayed for reversion to the post of Head Mistress under the Rajasthan Education Service Rules, therefore we are confining ourself to the prayer and the scope of writ petition as mentioned by petitioner which is limited to impugned order 10.09.2025. Admittedly, the order dated 22.09.2019 present petitioner was appointed as Head Mistress under Government Secondary School, Borai, Kumher District Bharatpur. When the petitioner was working as Head Mistress, she was selected in Direct Recruitment of 2018 and appointed as Naib Tehsildar on probation for a period of 2 years by order dated 24.12.2021. 6. The services of Naib Tehsildar are governed by the Rajasthan Tehsildar Services Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules of 1956’). Rule 34 provides for period of probation whereas Rule 34- A for confirmation in certain cases and Rule 35 unsatisfactory progress during probation. Rule 36 provides for confirmation and Rule 36-A confirmation at the end of period of probation, if prescribed departmental examination/training/proficiency test in Hindi are not held during period of probation. 7. We are reproducing Rules 34, 34-A, 35 and 36 as under:- 34. Period of Probation- (1) A person entering the service by Direct Recruitment against a clear vacancy [2025:RJ-JP:42887] (4 of 7) [CW-14518/2025] shall be placed as Probationer-trainee for a period of 2 years. Provided that any period after such appointment during which a person has been on deputation on a corresponding or higher post shall count towards the period of probation. (2) During the period of probation specified in sub- rule (1), each probationer trainee may be required to pass such Departmental Examination and to undergo such training as the Government may, from time to time, specify." (3) "Deleted" 34A. Confirmation in certain cases.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the preceding rule, a person appointed to a post in the service by direct recruitment as a probationer trainee under these rules has not been confirmed within six months after satisfactory completion of probation for a period of two years shall be entitled to be treated as confirmed in accordance with his/her seniority if,- (I) he/she has worked on the post or higher post under the same Appointing Authority or would have so worked but for his/her deputation or training; (ii) he/she fulfills conditions as are prescribed under rule relating to confirmation subject to the quota prescribed under these rules; and (iii) he has been appointed against a substantive vacancy." (2) If an employee referred to in sub-rule (1) above fails to fulfill the conditions mentioned in the said sub-rule, the period mentioned in sub-rule (1) above, may be extended as prescribed for a probation or under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Departmental Examination) Rules, 1959 and any other rules or by one year, whichever is longer. If the employee still fails to fulfill the conditions mentioned in sub-rule (1) above, he will be liable to be discharged or terminated from such post in the same manner as a probationer or reverted to his substantive or lower post, if any, to which he may be entitled. (3) The employee referred to in sub-rule (1) above, shall not be debarred from confirmation after the said period of service if no reasons to the contrary about the satisfactory performance of his work are communicated to him within the said period of service. (4) The reasons for not confirming of any employee referred to in sub-rule (1) above shall be recorded by the Appointing Authority in his Service Book and Annual Performance Appraisal Report. 35. Unsatisfactory progress during probation.- If it appears to the appointing authority, at any time, during or at the end of the period of probation, that services of a probationer-trainee are not found to be satisfactory, the appointing authority may revert him/her to the post on [2025:RJ-JP:42887] (5 of 7) [CW-14518/2025] which he/she is regularly selected immediately preceding his/her appointment as probationer trainee or in other cases may discharge or terminate him/her from services. The appointing authority shall accord appropriate opportunity to the probationer-trainee before final orders are passed in this respect 36. Confirmation.- A probationer will be confirmed in his appointment at the end of his period of probation if- (a) he has passed the prescribed Departmental Examination, if any; (b) he has passed a Departmental Test of proficiency in Hindi; and (c) the"District Officer" concerned reports that his integrity is unquestionable and that he is fit for confirmation. 8. Rule 36 provides that a probationer will be confirmed at the end of probation, if passed the prescribed departmental examination and departmental test of proficiency in Hindi besides the report from District Officer. Rule 35 provides for a contingency for extension of period of probation for a specific period not exceeding one year in appropriate cases. Rule 34(2) provides that during the period of probation each probationer trainee may be required to pass departmental examination and undergo training as specified by the Government. 9. The State Government has promulgated ‘ The Rajasthan Civil Services Departmental Examination Rules 1959’ (hereinafter referred as the “Rules of 1959”) for conducting departmental examinations for various categories of services in Rajasthan. 10. Rule 8 provides for eligibility for departmental examinations and eligibility is counted on the basis of first date of January of the year in which the examination is held. Rule 18(3) provides that the Registrar may exempt persons holding specified qualifications from appearing at some specified papers. Rule 19 provides that an employee will be given 3 chances to pass departmental [2025:RJ-JP:42887] (6 of 7) [CW-14518/2025] examination in all subjects. Rule 22 provides for penalty for not passing the departmental examinations. Rule 24 empowers the Administrative Department of the Government to relax rules. 11. Having considered a joint reading of Rules of 1956 and Rules of 1959 as referred hereinabove and also the grounds as raised by learned counsel for petitioner it is apparent on the record that present petitioner has appeared in departmental examination on 3 occasions but she remained unsuccessful. The petitioner has not submitted any representation except dated 19.07.2025 submitted to Hon’ble Governor of Rajsthan. The petitioner has also submitted a representation dated 10.06.2025 to the Chairman, Revenue Board, Ajmer for personal hearing. The representation dated 10.06.2025 is forwarded to the DOP while referring Rule 34-A of Rules of 1956 and Rules 19, 22 and 18 of Rules of 1959. 12. The Revenue Board has passed an order terminating the services of present petitioner on 10.09.2025. The petitioner has not challenged any provision of rule as Rule 34(2) specifically provides that the petitioner is required to pass a departmental examination. Rule 34(1)(ii) provides that the petitioner has to fulfil conditions as prescribed under the Rules relating to confirmation. Rule 36 provides confirmation only after passing of departmental examination. Herein, the representation submitted by the petitioner clearly indicate that firstly she has sought exemption from appearing in departmental examination and secondly she has sought one more opportunity to appear in the examination. The rule provides for 3 opportunities and material on record indicate that petitioner has served more than three and a half year in said services under the Rules of 1956. The Rules of [2025:RJ-JP:42887] (7 of 7) [CW-14518/2025] 1959 provides for three chances and petitioner has availed all 3 opportunities. The petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing as same is mentioned by the Revenue Board in letter dated 24.06.2025. The material on record is not sufficient to quash the impugned order dated 10.09.2025. There is no ground to entertain writ petition for consideration. 13. The petitioner can submit a representation for reverting her to the post of Head Mistress in any of Secondary School in State of Rajasthan. There is no prayer by the petitioner to this effect, so we cannot consider the writ petition on this alternative prayer. Accordingly, this writ petition is liable to be disposed of. 14. In view of discussions made hereinabove, no case is made out for entertaining the present writ petition, therefore, same is dismissed. The petitioner is given an opportunity to submit a representation for reversion to the post of Head Mistress in any Secondary School of Rajasthan. The concerned department is under an obligation to decide the representation within 4 weeks, from date of submission of representation. After passing the order, 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 representation. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, she has right to re-approach the court with fresh petition. 15. With aforesaid, the instant writ petition with pending application(s) stands disposed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /53