[2026:RJ-JP:12993] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 733/2021 Jitendra Meena Son Of Shri Gopi Ram Meena, Aged About 25 Years, Resident of Village Raniya, Post Ravari, Tehsil Jamuwa Ramgarh, Distt. Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Local Self Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director Cum Joint Secretary Local Bodies, Office Of Director Local Bodies, C-Scheme Jaipur. 3. Municipal Corporation Jaipur, Through Its Commissioner, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 4. The Dy. Commissioner (Personnel), Municipal Corporation, Lalkothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.P. Sharma with Ms. Santosh & Mr. Kirti Kumar Lamba For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.P. Singh Rajawat, Mr. Aryan Jagrat for Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 27/03/2026 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner with following prayer:- "i) By the appropriate writ, order or direction, your lordship may kindly be pleased to quash and set- aside the action of the respondent by which, initially petitioner was orally ousted from service and not allowed to work from 10.07.2020 and thereafter, service of petitioner was also terminated by written termination order dated 20.02.2023. [2026:RJ-JP:12993] (2 of 7) [CW-733/2021] ii) By appropriate order or directions, your lordship may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties as Safai Karmchari by setting aside the termination with all consequential benefits. iii) By appropriate order or directions, your lordship may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay his due salary with all consequential benefits and interest from the date of withholding the salary by the respondents. iv) Any other appropriate which order this Hon'ble Court deem fit and suitable for the benefit of the petitioner may kindly be passed and of cost the writ petition may also be allowed in favour of the petitioner." 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to advertisement dated 13.04.2018 for recruitment on the post of Sweeper, the petitioner was selected and vide order dated 07.09.2018, he was appointed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, (NN), Jaipur. He further submits that on 29.05.2020, the respondent-NN has submitted a reference to the Director on the ground that the petitioner was appointed when he has not completed minimum age of 18 years. He submitted that all of sudden the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled by the Commissioner, Nagar Nigam on 20.02.2023 and the petitioner has filed current writ petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred judgment in case of Amar Kumar Sasmal and Ors. vs Hrisikesh Samsal : Civil Appeal No. 622 of 1993, decided on 23.02.1999 and submitted that the termination order passed without giving any opportunity of hearing or following principle of natural justice, is [2026:RJ-JP:12993] (3 of 7) [CW-733/2021] contrary to law. He further placed reliance upon the judgment in case of Shri Gandhi Uccha Madhayamik Vidyalaya, Gulabpura Vs. The Rajasthan Non-Governmental Education Institutions Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur : 2025(4) WLC 212 (Raj.), and submitted that once a person duly appointed, then he acquire a vested right to continue in service or any order or action resulting in civil consequences must be passed after giving him an opportunity of hearing. He further placed reliance upon judgment in case of Ranjit Kumar Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand : 2016 (4) JLJR 584=2017(1) J.C.R. 328, Cosmas Bhengra and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., 2006(8) SLR 676=2005 AIR Jhar R.2148, and Sujeet Kumar Sah Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. : 2007(1) JCR 337 = 2006(3) AIR Jhar R. 835 (DB), and submitted that when the petitioner is not guilty of misrepresentation or fraud, then he cannot be held responsible for the appointment given to him by the respondents, even if he was underage. He submitted that the appointment order was passed in year 2018 and the petitioner was terminated on 20.02.2023 and in the meanwhile, the petitioner has served the respondent for around five years. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and he submitted that as per conditions of the advertisement, a person below age of 18 years on 01.01.2019 is not entitled to be considered for appointment on post of Sweeper, but due to clerical mistake, the petitioner was appointed and in case of such appointment, the petitioner does not acquire any right to continue in the service. He further submits that as soon as this issue was brought to the [2026:RJ-JP:12993] (4 of 7) [CW-733/2021] notice, the matter was referred to the Government and after the advice on 22.12.2022, the appointment order of the petitioner was cancelled and there is no illegality in recalling the appointment order, which was made contrary to the rules. He further submits that the petitioner has no right to continue on the job as his appointment is contrary to rules. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgments as referred by learned counsel for for the petitioner. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 has issued an advertisement No.1/2018, dated 13.04.2018, for inviting application for recruitment on posts of Sweeper in 184 Municipal Bodies. The advertisement has prescribed that the applicant must be of minimum 18 years and maximum of 35 years on 01.01.2019. There was age relaxation in upper age limit for certain categories, but the issue herein is with regard to minimum age. 7. Admittedly, the minimum age prescribed was 18 years on 01.01.2019. The petitioner has filed an application and was selected by the respondents. The petitioner was appointed on 07.09.2018 (Annexure 1). The date of birth of the petitioner mentioned in the appointment order was 10.05.2001, and on 07.09.2018, the petitioner was 17 years and approximately 4 months. As per advertisement, the date of birth has to be minimum 18 years on 01.01.2019, which means on 01.01.2019, the age of the petitioner is approximately 17 years and 8 months. Thus, the petitioner was less than 18 years of age on 01.01.2019. [2026:RJ-JP:12993] (5 of 7) [CW-733/2021] 8. The date of birth is mentioned in appointment order (Annexure 1), therefore, this is not a case of fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner. There is no fault of the petitioner that the petitioner was selected and appointed by the respondents. After appointment on 07.09.2018, the petitioner has acquired minimum age of 18 years in the morning of 10.05.2019. The Respondents have referred the case of petitioner on 23.04.2019 and 29.05.2020 to respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 has responded on 22.12.2022 and by the time the petitioner has already crossed the minimum age, meaning thereby, on 10.05.2019, the petitioner became eligible for appointment on post of sweeper, but prior to 10.05.2019, he was not eligible. 9. Herein, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 20.02.2023 (Annexure-7). Till the termination, the petitioner has rendered four and a half years of service and his age is approximately 22 years. The material on record clearly indicate that the petitioner was neither served any show-cause notice nor any disciplinary proceeding was conducted. Thus, the opportunity of hearing was not granted before passing order dated 20.02.2023. 10. In the case of Amar Kumar Sasmal and Ors. vs Hrisikesh Samsal (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered a case where a person was appointed as Cadet Warrant Officer, later promoted as Warrant Officer and was terminated on the ground of being overage at the time of appointment. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the principle of natural justice was not followed and the termination order was arbitrarily passed, hence, directed for absorption. [2026:RJ-JP:12993] (6 of 7) [CW-733/2021] 11. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Shri Gandhi Uccha Madhayamik Vidyalaya, Gulabpura Vs. The Rajasthan Non-Governmental Education Institutions Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (supra) has observed that once a person is granted appointment, he acquires a vested right to continue on said post and any order or action which may result into civil consequence should be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing and while referring the judgment in case of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519 held that as per opportunity to provide hearing before making any decision is considered to be necessary requirement. 12. In case of Sujeet Kumar Sah Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (supra) A Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court has held that a candidate has disclosed his correct date of birth in his application form and there is no misrepresentation on his part, his services cannot be terminated on the ground of illegal appointment. Referring the judgment in case of Cosmas Bhengra and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (supra) wherein a person who was underage i.e. three days less than prescribed age, was appointed and the State of Jharkhand has dismissed him on the ground of misconduct, he having been appointed below the prescribed age. It was held that there is no misconduct on the part of the person, and he is entitled for reinstatement. 13. Again relying upon judgment in case of Cosmas Bhengra and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (supra), a Coordinate Bench of Jharkhand High Court in case of Ranjit Kumar Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), has allowed the writ petition and reinstated the petitioner as the petitioner was [2026:RJ-JP:12993] (7 of 7) [CW-733/2021] underage on prescribed date but there was no misrepresentation on his part. 14. Herein also, there is no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and it was duty of the respondents to verify the fact before issuing appointment order, but they have not done so neither at the time of scrutiny of application form nor during process of selection and even not at the time of appointment. The petitioner was not served any notice before terminating his service, therefore, violation of principle of natural justice in such case is a ground to set aside the order of termination. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 15. In view of the discussion made herein above, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure-7) is hereby quashed and set aside and the petitioner is reinstated as Sweeper with respondent No.3 (NN). The petitioner is entitled for consequential benefits as available to him except the back wages and other monetary benefits. 16. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/6