[2026:RJ-JP:1625-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8985/2022 1. Om Prakash Sharma Son Of Gopal Lal Sharma, Resident Of Badi, Muhana, Sanganer, Jaipur At Present Posted As Process Server At Family Court No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur. 2. Nawal Singh Gaira Son Of Jaswant Singh Gaira, Resident Of Shop No. 34-35, Pawan Putra Colony, 80 Feet, Bajari Mandi, Vaishali Marg, Panchwala, Jaipur At Present Posted As Process Server At The Office Of District And Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. 3. Laxman Prasad Meena Son Of Ladu Ram, Resident Of Jaton Ki Dhani, Mohanpura (Madau), Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur At Present Posted As Process Server At The Office Of Additional District And Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur. 4. Chhiter Mal Sharma Son Of Govind Ram Sharma, Resident Of Village Ali, Mukam Post Labana, Via Achrol, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur At Present Posted As Process Server In The Office Of District And Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. 5. Shankar Das Sharma Son Of Shri Narayan Sharma, Resident Of Mukh Post Khoh Dhariba, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar At Present Posted As Process Server At The Office Of District And Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. 6. Hanuman Prasad Sharma Son Of Nanagram Sharma, Resident Of Village Jaipura, Post Gullana, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa At Present Posted As Process Server In The Office Of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Spe Cases), Jaipur District, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan High Court, Through Its Registrar General, Jodhpur. 3. District And Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.V. Nandwana. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG assisted by Mr. Priyam Agarwal & Ms. Monisha Agarwal. Mr. Prateek Kasliwal with Ms. Gauri Jasana. [2026:RJ-JP:1625-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-8985/2022] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 15/01/2026 1. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of ‘Raghuveer Sharan Joshi & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10306/2019) decided on 11.08.2025, wherein, the following order was passed:- “1. The challenge is to the provision contained in amendment made in Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts (Driver And Class-IV Employees) Service Rules, 2017 (for short ‘the Rules of2017’), whereby following provision was added:- “(b)to the general cadre as Clerk Grade-II by a Competitive Examination: Provided that 25% of the total number of vacancies of the Clerk Gr-II in each Judgeship shall be reserved for being filled in by promotion from amongst, the process server and class IV employees who have put in five years service in the Judgeship concerned and possess the academic qualification prescribed in these rules for the post of Clerk Grade-II in 1:2 (1 Process Server and2 Class IV Employees):” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts (Driver And Class-IV Employees)Service Rules, 2017, a Class-IV employee on completing three years of service, becomes eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Process Server, which is a 100% promotion post. Once a Class-IV employee is in avenue for promotion to the post of Process Server, he cannot be placed at relevant stage to that of Process Server for the purpose of promotion to the post of Clerk Grade-II. Learned counsel further submits that by providing and adding chances of Class-IV [2026:RJ-JP:1625-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-8985/2022] employees for promotion to the post of Clerk Grade-II, the rights of the existing Process Servers, has been affected. Learned counsel submits that the rule having taking away the valuable right of consideration for promotion of the Process Server, deserves to be declared ultra-vires. Learned counsel also submits that the very purpose of being promoted as Process Server from Class-IV employee would fade, if both are put at the equal pedestal. Learned counsel submits that both the posts cannot be placed equally and in terms of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. Reply has been filed. 4. It has been pointed out that as per the Rules of 2017, the post of Process Server has been held to be a 100% promotion post and therefore, Class-IV employees who have put in three years service, become eligible for consideration for promotion. The amendment made in the Rules of 2017 providing chances to Class-IV employees, who have put in five years in service for consideration for promotion as Clerk Grade-II, has been made with the sole purpose to give an avenue of promotion to Class-IV employees as the number of posts of Process Servers are much less. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents have also pointed out that the promotion avenue to the post of Clerk Grade-II was provided prior to the change of criteria of promotion to the post of Process Server. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties. 7. We find that the purpose of providing added avenue of promotion to the Class-IV employees germanes from the fact that there are much higher number of Class-IV employees, while the post of Process Server in Courts are much lesser. The stagnation on the post of Class-IV employees needs to be considered accordingly. If an additional avenue of promotion has been provided to the Class- IV employees, the same cannot be said to be without having any nexus to the purpose sought to be achieved. [2026:RJ-JP:1625-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-8985/2022] 8. The relevance of the amendment, therefore, having been made out and the chances of promotion are available to the Process Servers too, if the ratio is 1:2 on the post of Clerk Grade-II sufficiently takes care of them. 9. We, therefore, do not find any reason to hold the provision ultra-vires or discriminatory in character. 10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 11. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.” 2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has not disputed the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Raghuveer Sharan Joshi (supra). 3. We have gone through the material available on record as well as the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and we find that since the validity with regard to Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts (Driver And Class-IV Employees) Service Rules, 2017 has already been upheld by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, therefore, no case is made out for interference by this Court as the controversy has already been decided. 4. In view of the above, the present wit petition stands dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J MG/33