1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5658/1999. : : Smt. Veena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : : Date of Order 8.7.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Ms.Jyotsana for Mr.K.N.Gupta for the petitioner. Mr.P.N.Paliwal for Mr.B.K.Sharma for the respondent. Ms.Parinitoo Jain, Dy.Govt.Counsel, for the State. This writ petition has been filed at the instance of petitioner Veena w/o Vijay Harijan on the premise that she has been working with the respondent-Municipal Council, Bharatpur since 1988 as Safai Karmchari. Her case has been recommended by the Municipal Council, Bhartpur to the Director of Local Bodies for grant of regular pay scale. In spite of the petitioner having rendered satisfactory services, the respondents have not granted to her regular pay scale. The Director, Local Bodies, however, vide order dated 6.9.1995 accorded sanction for creating 60 posts of Safai Karmcharis. The petitioner thereafter applied in response to advertisement issued by the respondents. The prayer has been made that respondents may be directed to regularise 2 services of the petitioner and pay her salary in the regular pay scale. The respondents have denied the fact that the petitioner is working since 1988. However, it has been stated that she was engaged on daily wages vide order dated 25.5.1995 under the order of Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bharatpur. Since there was no sanction accorded by the State Government, her services could not be regularised. Commissioner of the respondent-Municipal Council, Bharatpur has specifically filed an additional affidavit. According to the affidavit the State Government issued a Circular dated 13.1.2003 pursuant to judgment of this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No.1177/92 Sushila Vs. State of Rajasthan for filling up vacancies of Safai Karmchari. The petitioner applied for appointment in response to this advertisement. She called for interview. At the time of scrutiny of application form, it transpired that her husband Vijay Singh was already serving the respondent-Municipal Council as Safai Karmchari. According to circular dated 13.1.2003 in its Para No.6 Sub Clause IV (a) (B), the petitioner was not eligible. The aforesaid contention, interalia provides that if a relative of an applicant is seeking appointment on the post of Safai 3 Karmchari is already appointed as Safai Karmchari he/she would not be eligible for appointment. Such similar condition based on direction of Local Bodies was incorporated in an advertisement issued by Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur which was challenged before this Court at the at the principal seat. This Court in Mohan Lal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajsthan & Ors., RLR 2007 (1) held that such a condition to be arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory and, therefore, ultra vires of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and accordingly struck down the same. In view of the above, the respondents cannot deny her right for consideration of appointment on the post of Safai Karmchari. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner for appointment pursuant to the call letter dated 4.8.2003 and if any candidate lower in merit than her has been provided appointment, her case should also be considered ignoring the condition that her husband was already engaged and if found suitable, she be also appointed from the same date. 4 Compliance of the judgment be made within a period of three months from the date copy of the judgment is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.26.