[2026:RJ-JP:11952] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21694/2018 Munna Harijan S/o Shri Mohan Harijan, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Makan No. 14, Manth Balanand Ji Ka Rasta, Harijan Basti, Chandpal Bazar, Jaipur Poorv Safai Karamchari Nagar Nigam, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Nagreey Vikas Avam Swayatt Shaasan Vibhag Rajasthan Sarkar, Jaipur 2. Nagar Nigam, Jaipur Through Mukhya Karyakari Adhikari ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Chander Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harish C. Khandpal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 13/01/2026 1. The instant petition is filed by the petitioner on the ground that he has worked as a sweeper from the year 1993 to 1997. The Municipal Corporation issued an advertisement in the year 2012 inviting applications for the post of sweeper and recruited lesser experienced persons as sweepers. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 15593/2013 and the same was disposed of on 12.09.2014, but despite making representation to the respondent Corporation, the petitioner was not considered for appointment. The petitioner has further stated that in the year 2018, again an advertisement for recruitment on the post of sweeper was issued and, despite the direction dated 12.09.2014, the candidature of [2026:RJ-JP:11952] (2 of 4) [CW-21694/2018] the present petitioner was not considered on preferential terms. The petitioner served a notice dated 06.06.2018, but the same was also not decided. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has worked as a sweeper and, as per the policy of the respondent, all persons who have worked as sweepers were given preference for appointment on the post of sweeper, but the candidature of the present petitioner was not considered by the respondent. He also referred to the previous order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court and the two recruitment processes conducted by the respondent and submitted that this is a case of discrimination and the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus for appointment on the post of sweeper. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondent, who submitted that the petitioner has not make out any case for consideration on a preferential basis. He also submitted that the petitioner has not submitted any document to support his candidature. It was further submitted that the petitioner has already crossed the age of more than 55 years. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. Admittedly, recruitment on the post of sweepers were conducted under the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Karamchari) Service Rules, 2012 and subsequent amendment in the year 2018. The petitioner has claimed that advertisements were issued in the years 2012 and [2026:RJ-JP:11952] (3 of 4) [CW-21694/2018] 2018, but his candidature was not considered. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 15593/2013, which was disposed of by this Court on 12.09.2014 with following observation: Having regard to the facts of the case, writ petition is disposed of requiring the petitioners to the Chief Executive approach the respondent no.2 officer. Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, by filing a representation along-with a copy of this order, who shall, after verifying the facts afore-stated, consider and decide the same by appropriate speaking order within a period of two months from the date of its making, addressing their grievance why despite their working for more than 240 days in a calendar year have not been given appointment whereas the candidates having only 20-30 days experience have been given appointment, or otherwise give reasons. 6. The material on record clearly indicates that the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to file representation, but no order conclusively reflect that rights of the petitioner were decided in his favour. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not filed any document to show that he has worked continuously for 240 days. One of the sheets, Annexure-4, does not bear any signature and the same is not sufficient to draw any conclusion. The material on record is not sufficient to consider case of the present petitioner to issue any direction to the respondent. The petitioner has drawn attention to the provisions under Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which were already considered in the [2026:RJ-JP:11952] (4 of 4) [CW-21694/2018] previous writ petition. No new case has been made out in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief on any count. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition, along with the miscellaneous application, if any, is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /17