[2026:RJ-JP:20589] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8539/2026 Priya Kumari D/o Shri Brahmanand, aged about 32 Years, R/o Jeevika Apartment, New Bongaigaon Assam-783380, The Then Assistant Engineer (Civil), Municipal Council, Dholpur, presently residing at Gopalpura Bypass, Triveni Nagar, Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through its Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj). 2. The Director, Local Bodies Government of Rajasthan, Department of Local Self Government, G-3, Raj Mahal Residency Area, Near Civil Lines Railway Crossing Jaipur (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamalesh Sharma with Mr. Askhit Gupta For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 15/05/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Municipal Council, Dholpur on 21.07.2024. Counsel submits that on the basis of a complaint dated 03.09.2025, a trap proceeding was conducted against the petitioner by Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan on 11.09.2025, however, no recovery whatsoever was effected from the petitioner, yet she was arrested in connection with the said proceedings. Counsel submits that consequent to her arrest and custody exceeding 48 hours, the petitioner was placed [2026:RJ-JP:20589] (2 of 3) [CW-8539/2026] under suspension vide impugned order dated 13.09.2025 passed by respondent No.2, i.e. Director, Department of Local Self Government, Jaipur, under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Counsel submits that as per the Circular dated 22.03.2023 issued by Department of Personnel, cases of suspension are required to be periodically reviewed by a competent Committee in every four months, however, in the present case, more than eight months have been passed but the case of the petitioner’s suspension has not been reviewed by the concerned authority. Counsel further submits that in such circumstances, a detailed representation dated 08.04.2026 was filed by the petitioner before the respondent No.2, seeking consideration and revocation of her suspension, but no action has been taken by respondent No.2 for redressal of the petitioner’s grievance. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 may be directed to dispose of her representation at the earliest in accordance with law. 3. Considering the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation dated 08.04.2026 filed by the petitioner by way of passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. After the decision, the respondent No.2 is under an obligation to communicate the decision to the petitioner either by way of speed-post or through [2026:RJ-JP:20589] (3 of 3) [CW-8539/2026] E-mail, if petitioner has provided E-mail address in her representation. 4. In the event, the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of the respondent No.2 on her representation, she would be at liberty to approach this Court with fresh petition. 5. With the aforesaid directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the petitioner’s representation independently and strictly in accordance with law. 7. The stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /25