[2026:RJ-JP:3658] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 994/2001 Smt Kusum Chauhan w/o Shri B.V.S. Chouhan, aged about 29 years, resident of 57, Sain Colony, Prem Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India – through Secretary to Ministry of Labour, Sharam Mantralaya, Sharam Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. 2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Territory Manager, Sanganer Installation, Sitapura, Jaipur. ----Non-petitioners For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sarita Chodhary, Advocate and Ms. Supriya, Advocate. on behalf of Mr. Suresh Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Madhav Dadich, Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 27/01/2026 1. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and non-petitioner No.1 be directed to make a reference to the learned Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged for some work by the respondents through contractor for some time and when her name was sent through Employment Exchange for appointment on the post of Steno then she was denied appointment as the post advertised was earmarked for ‘SC [2026:RJ-JP:3658] (2 of 2) [CW-994/2001] Category’. The respondents denied the appointment due to this reason. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute. The conciliation between the parties failed, and thereafter, Union of India vide order dated 20.09.2000 refused to refer the matter to the learned Labour Court for its adjudication. The reason assigned for non-reference has been mentioned in the order dated 20.09.2000 and the relevant part of the said order reads as under: “It is reported that the workman was not appointed by the management of BPCL. When her name was sponsored by the employment exchange, she was not found suitable as the vacancy was earmarked for SC category.” 3. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record. 4. The petitioner has not challenged the order dated 20.09.2000 passed by Union of India whereby Union of India refused to refer the matter for its adjudication to the learned Labour Court. In my considered view, there is no illegality committed by Union of India in passing the order dated 20.09.2000, as admittedly, the petitioner does not belong to the ‘SC Category’ whereas the vacancy was earmarked for ‘SC Category’ and further after a lapse of twenty-five years, no case is made out for interference by this Court. 5. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J Tushar/1