[2026:RJ-JP:1068] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20605/2025 Avdhesh Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Virendra Kumar Choudhary, Aged About 38 Years, R/o House No. 116, Krishna Vihar Colony, Kunadi, Near Chungi Naka, Kota. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Hathibhata Power House, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 2. Secretary, Administration, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Hathibhata Power House, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshit Gupta for Mr. Kamalesh Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 12/01/2026 1. By way of the present petition, challenge is made to impugned action of respondents, dated 07.10.2025, on account of which the petitioner was terminated from the post of Technical Helper (Probationer Trainee). It is submitted petitioner should be regularized and consequential reliefs should be awarded to him. 2. On perusal of the record, it is analyzed that petitioner was appointed on 04.01.2008 as probationer trainee subject to certain conditions. The relevant condition is re-produced as under: “3- Services of the above Probationer- Trainee can be terminated at any time by giving one month’s notice in writing or by giving one month’s remuneration in lieu [2026:RJ-JP:1068] (2 of 3) [CW-20605/2025] thereof, except in case of misconduct of any description were services could be terminated as per relevant provisions, without giving any kind of notice and such persons would not be entitled to any kind of compensation.” 3. Vide letter dated 23.07.2009 (annexure-8), service of petitioner were terminated, as the same was not found satisfactory, the same was challenged and vide order dated 10.04.2023 (annexure-3) for non-compliance of condition No.3, the order was set aside and it was directed to the respondents to comply with the terms and condition as mentioned in para-3 vis-a- vis appointment order dated 04.01.2008 and pass fresh order, in accordance with law within a period of three months. 4. The said order was put to challenge before the Division Bench vide annexure-11 which vide order dated 18.02.2025 was considered and order reproduced hereinbelow was passed, in the cross appeals. “This appeal filed on behalf of appellant deserves to be dismissed for the reasons: firstly, the appellant was appointed on probation and he worked with the respondents only for ten days and remained absent from his duty without informing the respondents; secondly, the appellant failed to submit any document in support of his illness either before the Department or even before the learned Single Judge, therefore the action taken by the respondents in terminating the services of such in- disciplined employee cannot be said to be faulty, therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly pass the order, in given direction to the respondents to act in accordance with terms and conditions of appointment order. In that view of the matter, the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant is dismissed.” [2026:RJ-JP:1068] (3 of 3) [CW-20605/2025] 5. In pursuance to the same, the impugned order is passed whereby relying upon Clause 3 of the appointment letter dated 04.01.2008 after giving one months’ notices and a draft of the specified amount, the services of the petitioners’ are terminated w.e.f. 07.10.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that mentioning of the word "termination w.e.f. today" itself goes to show that the order is faulty and not tenable. 7. On perusal of the order impugned dated 07.10.2025, it is analyzed that the same is passed in conformity of the directions of the Division Bench as well as the Single Bench; the services being not found satisfactory and Clause 3 being complied with, the technical argument that "the termination is w.e.f. today" is misinterpreted, nonetheless, the Court also granted a liberty to the parties to the petition, thence, for the reason of prolonged judicial intervention and due consideration being already made, no interference is called for. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK /19