[2026:RJ-JP:31017-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 236/2024 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3669/1997 CNR: RJHC020178152024 | URN: SAW / 626U / 2024 Prakash S/o Ram Dayal, Aged About 56 Years, Shivkunda-Ki- Talai, Karba Amer, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus 1. Om Prakash (Since Deceased), Through Lrs - 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Irrigation, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Jaipur. 4. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Division Jaipur. 5. Kailash Sharma, President Jaipur District Irrigation Union (Intuc) Jaipur Through The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Jaipur Division, Jaipur. 6. Rukmani Sharma Wife Of Shri Om Prakash, Resident Of Kherwala, Tehsil And Distt. Dausa, Rajasthan. 7. Ashok Sharma Son Of Shri Om Prakash, Resident Of Kherwala, Tehsil And Distt. Dausa, Rajasthan. 8. Ram Manohar Sharma Son Of Shri Om Prakash, Resident Of Kherwala, Tehsil And Distt. Dausa, Rajasthan. 9. Murari Lal Sharma Son Of Shri Om Prakash, Resident Of Kherwala, Tehsil And Distt. Dausa, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Lokesh Sharma & Mr. Anzum Parveen. For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG assisted by Mr. Hardik Singh. Mr. Rajat Ranjan & Mr. Abhay Nath Deora. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA [2026:RJ-JP:31017-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-236/2024] Order 06/08/2026 This appeal has been filed by the appellant-workman (Prakash), challenging the order dated 03.08.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3669/1997, whereby the writ petition filed by Om Prakash was allowed. Brief facts of the case are that Om Prakash filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3669/1997 before this Court, alleging that the appellant-workman (Prakash), had obtained appointment by committing fraud and impersonating him. The learned Single Judge directed an enquiry into the matter by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, pursuant to the said direction, an enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted, wherein it was found that the appellant-workman (Prakash) had wrongfully obtained appointment in the name of Om Prakash and Om Prakash was the person entitled to such appointment. Consequently, the services of the appellant-workman (Prakash) was terminated vide order dated 13.04.1999. The appellant-workman (Prakash) challenged the said termination order by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3101/1999, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 03.10.2023. Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.10.2023, the appellant-workman (Prakash) filed D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1000/2023, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.01.2024, however, liberty was granted to the appellant-workman (Prakash) to challenge the order dated 03.08.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in [2026:RJ-JP:31017-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-236/2024] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3669/1997. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-workman (Prakash). Counsel appearing for the appellant-workman (Prakash) submits that the learned Single Judge passed the order dated 03.08.1999 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant-workman (Prakash). Counsel further argued that during the pendency of the writ petition filed by Om Prakash, the services of the appellant-workman (Prakash) was terminated by the Department vide order dated 13.04.1999, therefore, the appellant-workman (Prakash) rightly challenged the said termination order by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3101/1999 before the learned Single Judge and lastly, prayed for allowing the present appeal. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Although the appellant-workman (Prakash) was not impleaded as a party in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3669/1997 filed by Om Prakash, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 03.08.1999, the appellant-workman (Prakash) was well aware of the complaint made by Om Prakash alleging that he had wrongfully obtained appointment in his name on the post of Baildar and the appellant-workman (Prakash) was also aware that his services had been terminated pursuant to the enquiry conducted into the matter. We have also considered the fact that instead of seeking appropriate remedy in the writ petition filed by Om Prakash, the [2026:RJ-JP:31017-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-236/2024] appellant-workman (Prakash) chose to file a separate writ petition, i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3101/1999, challenging his termination order, the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The termination of the appellant-workman (Prakash) was based upon the enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, wherein it was found that Om Prakash was the person entitled to the appointment and the appellant-workman (Prakash) had wrongfully obtained appointment in his name. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the appellant-workman (Prakash) had obtained the appointment by committing fraud and we also find that no justification to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, particularly when the said order was passed about 25 years ago. In that view of the matter, the present appeal is dismissed. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J 61/MG