[2026:RJ-JP:10151] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19813/2025 Krishna Chouhan D/o Shrawan Kumar W/o Punit Kumar, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Village Post Dujod Waya Sanwali District Sikar (Rajasthan)- 332021. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Zila Parishad Sikar Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Opposite Santoshi Mata Mandir, Devipura, Sikar, Rajasthan- 332001. 3. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Dhod, District Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sara Parveen For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prateek Saxena for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 10/03/2026 1. The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner with following prayer:- "1. The impugned letter dated 02.12.2025 (Annexure-18) may kindly be declared as arbitrary, illegal and accordingly be quashed and set aside while directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue at her place of posting on the post of L.D.C. as she was continuing prior to passing of impugned letter dated 02.12.2025, in the interest of justice. 2. Any other appropriate order, which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be passed in favour of the petitioner." [2026:RJ-JP:10151] (2 of 3) [CW-19813/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring order dated 21.01.2026 in case of Pankaj Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9539/2022, submits that the issue and controversy raised herein has already been considered by this Hon'ble Court in case of Pankaj Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra) and the present writ petition may be disposed of in accordance with the terms as laid down in case of Pankaj Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra). 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents candidly admits that the issue was considered by this Hon'ble Court in light of several judgments of the Division Bench, therefore, the writ petition may be disposed of accordingly. 4. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. The brief facts of the case clearly suggests that the petitioner claims to be regularly selected and appointed on the post of LDC pursuant to LDC Recruitment Examination, 2013 issued by the respondents. The petitioner has rendered eight years of service and thereafter her services were terminated by the CEO, Zila Parishad, Sikar vide order dated 02.12.2025. The petitioner has alleged that without conducting an inquiry or opportunity of hearing, no action can be taken against her as it violates the fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. Having considered aforesaid and also the ratio as laid down in case of Tikam Chand Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected matter, (D.B. Civil Writ Petition [2026:RJ-JP:10151] (3 of 3) [CW-19813/2025] No. 7316/2017), order dated 18.04.2014 in case of Manohar Lal Jaga Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected matter (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5861/2013), and also by a Co-ordinate Bench in case of Ramniwas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10519/2017), this Court has decided two writ petitions led by Pankaj Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra). 7. Since the issue as raised herein has already been considered by a Division Bench and has further been followed by a Co- ordinate Bench and also by this Court, therefore, it is appropriate to dispose of the instant writ petition in light of ratio laid down in aforementioned judgments. 8. Thus, the writ petition is disposed in following manner:- I) The impugned order dated 02.12.2025 (Annexure-18) is hereby quashed and set aside. II) The petitioner Krishna Chouhan is reinstated on the post of L.D.C. with all consequential benefits. III) The respondents are at liberty to conduct departmental inquiry as per rules against the petitioner. 9. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/65