Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) BOTH the learned counsels for the parties state at Bar that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by decision of a coordinate bench of this Court (Jaipur Bench) in the case of Suleman Khan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. along -with 12 connected writ petitions (SBCWP No. 20278/2012, decided on 08.04.2013) and another decision of a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Yashwant Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No. 9324/2010, decided on 20.02.2014).
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners submitted that the case of the present petitioners for regularization as 'Syce' (Live Stock Assistant) deserves to be considered as they have been working on contract basis for long period since 1996. A coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Suleman Khan (supra), has held as under: - In view of direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court quoted above, the State Government issued Notification to amend the rules for consideration of the case for regularization of those who have completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006. It is after ignoring the fact that even subsequent to the aforesaid date, many persons have been continued in service in same manner and a period of more than 7 years is going to pass in this month itself, thus their cases cannot be ignored in the light of the in para No. 53 of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). The issue aforesaid has already been considered by the Division Bench in case of Murari Badharra (supra), hence, in my opinion, when the petitioners' appointment are not illegal and is otherwise against sanctioned post, then required to be considered for regularization. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till then, the petitioners' service may not be discontinued to frustrate their cause unless there are serious complaint followed by an enquiry. The respondent/s would be at liberty to utilize services of the petitioners as per their requirement but it will not frustrate their claim for regularization and benefits arising out of it. This disposes of the stay applications also.
(3.) IN the case of Yashwant Singh (supra), the another coordinate bench of this Court held as under: - After perusing the above adjudication made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case, this Court is of the opinion that all the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid adjudication are in existence in this case, therefore, respondents are under obligation to consider the case of petitioner and other similarly situated employees for the purpose of regularization while taking into account the qualification possessed by the candidates so also the service tenure of the employees as per judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in the light of directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 53 of the above judgment within a period of three months from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order. It is made clear that all the employees working like the petitioner may also be considered for regularization and they need not file writ petition before this Court and respondents are directed to consider their case for regularization.;