STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs DR. RAMAKANT SONI

[2026:RJ-JD:54222-DB]
REPORTABLE
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 891/2026
CNR: RJHC010553512026 | URN: SAW / 1752U / 2026
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through- The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
State Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Dr. Ramakant Soni S/o Shri Chotmal Soni, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Sahi Kripa Society, Near Sarla Birla Kalyan
Mandap, New Colony, Kutchaman City, District- Nagaur,
Rajasthan. (Presently Veterinary Officer At Veterinary
Hospital Aakoda, Deedwana, District- Nagaur, Rajasthan).
2. Dr. Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About
31 Years, Village-Dilki-Jatan Tehsil-Nohar, District -
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. (Presently Veterinary Officer At
Govt. Veterinary Hospital Utradabas Bhadra District-
Hanumangarh).
3. Dr. Shahdab Ahmed Khan S/o Shri Iqbal Ahmed Khan,
Aged About 37 Years, R/o 23/195, Shastri Nagar,
Mohammidia Colony, Bhilwara, Rajasthan. (Presently
Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital Danthal,
District- Bhilwara).
4. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer,
Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravindra Jala for
Mr. S. S. Ladrecha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. P. Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Judgment
03/11/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Special Appeal arises out of a judgment
rendered by learned Single Bench dated 28.11.2025 passed in
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:09:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)

(2 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:54222-DB] [SAW-891/2026]
SB Civil Writ Petition No.4217/2020, whereby the writ petition
filed by the petitioners-respondents was allowed directing the
appellants to regularize their services on the post of Veterinary
Officer.
3. Briefly noted facts relevant for deciding the present appeal
are that the petitioners-respondents, who were holding the
requisite qualifications for the post of Veterinary Officer, applied
for appointment on such post in pursuance of the recruitment
advertisement dated 14.03.2013, whereby, 500 posts under Rule
26 of Rules of 1963 were advertised. In pursuance of the selection
process held by the appellants, the petitioners-respondents were
appointed on the post of Veterinary Officer in the year 2013. The
appellants, after three years, abruptly terminated the services of
petitioners-respondents. The petitioners-respondents challenged
the termination order before this Court by filing writ petition and
those writ petitions were ultimately allowed by this Court. The
petitioners-respondents, in these circumstances, continued to
serve the Department on the post of Veterinary Officer. The
petitioners-respondents in the year 2020 approached the
appellant-Department for regularizing their services but after
being denied the same, the petitioners-respondents approached
this Court by way of filing the writ petition. Learned Single Bench,
after hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the writ
petition vide order dated 28.11.2025 directing the appellants to
regularize the services of the petitioners-respondents on the post
of Veterinary Officer. Hence, the present appeal has been filed.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General vehemently submits
before this Court that the learned Single Bench was not right in
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:09:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)

(3 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:54222-DB] [SAW-891/2026]
allowing the writ petition as the petitioners-respondents were
appointed only on urgent temporary basis under Rule 26 and since
they were not regularly selected and appointed on the post of
Veterinary Officer, therefore, their services are not entitled to be
regularized.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that in
view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4
SCC 1, the services of persons, who had been irregularly
appointed, could be regularized only upon due consideration of
their respective cases in the light of the principles laid down
therein. He further submits that the said exercise was envisaged
as a one time measure for regularization of such persons.
However, the cases of those persons who were continuing in
service pursuant to interim orders passed by Courts or Tribunals
were specifically excluded from consideration for the purpose of
regularization.
6. Learned counsel submits that since the petitioners-
respondents were working in view of the interim orders and
Judgment passed by this Court, therefore, it cannot be deemed
that they have completed more than 10 years of uninterrupted
service. He therefore, prays that the Special Appeal may be
allowed and the writ petition filed by the petitioners-respondents
may be dismissed and the impugned order dated 28.11.2025
passed by the learned Single Bench may be quashed and set
aside.
7. Per contra , the learned counsel for the petitioners-
respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by the
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:09:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)

(4 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:54222-DB] [SAW-891/2026]
learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the order
passed by the learned Single Bench is perfectly in conformity with
the number of Judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
including the judgment passed in case of Jaggo vs. Union of
India reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 , wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the Judgment rendered in
the case of Uma Devi ( Supra ) .
8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the
appointment of the petitioners-respondents cannot be termed as
illegal. He further submits that even if it is considered to be
irregular, the same was done as per the mandate of Rule 26 of the
Rule of 1963. Learned counsel further submits that the nature and
validity of such appointments have been considered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union Of India ( Supra ) ,
particularly in the context of termination orders being issued
against such employees from time to time. It is further contended
that in view of the Judgment and order passed by this Court, the
petitioners-respondents have rendered more than 10 years of
uninterrupted service. Learned counsel further submits that a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mohd. Sadiq vs.
State of Rajasthan decided on 16.03.2026 had an occasion to
consider the similar situation and in that Judgment also, the
co-ordinate Bench has taken note of the Judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors.
(supra) and has allowed the Special appeal by giving the direction
to the respondent-State to regularize the services of the appellant
after completing 10 years from the date of his initial appointment
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:09:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)

(5 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:54222-DB] [SAW-891/2026]
with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel therefore, prays
that the appeal may be dismissed.
9. We have considered the submissions made before this Court
and have gone through the relevant record of the case. The
undisputed fact disclosed in the writ petition is that the
petitioners-respondents were appointed on the post of Veterinary
Officer in pursuance of the selection process undertaken in the
year 2013. The petitioners-respondents have served the
Department for more than 10 years and on one occasion their
services were terminated. Then, they approached this Court by
way of filing writ petitions and the same were allowed and by the
force of the order passed by this Court, the petitioners-
respondents are continuously serving the appellant-Department
since 2013. The petitioners-respondents made a representation to
the appellant-State for regularization of their services and since
they were not granted the same, therefore, they approached this
court by way of filing a writ petition before the learned Single
Bench and the learned Single Bench of this Court allowed the writ
petition vide order dated 28.11.2025 by giving a direction to the
appellant-Department to regularize services of the petitioners-
respondents after completion of 10 years by computing the period
of 10 years from the date of joining the service initially with all
consequential benefits.
10. The only ground which has been canvassed before this Court
by learned counsel for the appellants is that the petitioners-
respondents have not served the appellant-Department
uninterruptedly and their services were terminated and therefore,
as per the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:09:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)

(6 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:54222-DB] [SAW-891/2026]
the case of Uma Devi (supra), the benefit of regularization can not
be granted to these petitioners-respondents.
11. The argument is noted to be rejected only on the ground
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union
of India & Ors . decided on 20.12.2024 reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3826 has held as under:-
"12. Despite being labelled as “part-time workers,” the
appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and
continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a
decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not
sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent,
regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with
sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any
other personnel for these tasks during the appellants’ tenure,
underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.
xxxxx
16. The appellants’ consistent performance over their long
tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization. At no
point during their engagement did the respondents raise any
issues regarding their competence or performance. On the
contrary, their services were extended repeatedly over the years,
and their remuneration, though minimal, was incrementally
increased which was an implicit acknowledgment of their
satisfactory performance. The respondents’ belated plea of
alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an after thought and
lacks credibility.
xxxxx
20. It is well established that the decision in Uma
Devi(supra)does not intend to penalize employees who have
rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary
functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment
sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that
circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where
appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where
employees had served continuously against the backdrop of
sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair
and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged,
continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently
required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what
was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair
regularization. In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod
Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors., it was held that
held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny
regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was
termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as
performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:09:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)

(7 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:54222-DB] [SAW-891/2026]
the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this
judgement have been reproduced below:
“6. The application of the judgment in Uma
Devi(supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with
the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under
which the appellants were employed and have continued
their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the
outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive
rights that have accrued over a considerable period
through continuous service. Their promotion was based on
a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent
circular, followed by a selection process involving written
tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from
the appointments through back door entry as discussed in
the case of Uma Devi(supra).
7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi(supra) also
distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal”
appointments underscoring the importance of considering
certain appointments even if were not made strictly in
accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure,
cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had
followed the procedures of regular appointments such as
conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the
present case”
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label
ofthe appellants’ engagements and the outsourcing decision
takenafter their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface
labels and consider the realities of employment: continuous,
long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala
fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing
regularization simply because their original terms did not
explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was
belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness
and equity.
xxxx.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees,
particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted
forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of
temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or
seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to
evade long- term obligations owed to employees. These practices
manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels : Employees engaged for
work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning
of an institution are often labeled as "temporary"or
"contractual,"even when their roles mirror those of regular
employees. Such mis classification deprives workers of the
dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are
entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination : Temporary employees are frequently
dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case.
This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and
subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of
the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression : Temporary employees often
find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:09:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)

(8 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:54222-DB] [SAW-891/2026]
development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They
remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity
between them and their regular counterparts, despite their
contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield : Institutions increasingly
resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees,
effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another.
This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also
demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer
regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits : Temporary employees
are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident
fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure
spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and
their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness,
retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi(supra) sought to curtail the
practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to
constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are
often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of
long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish
between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically
held that employees in irregular appointments, who were
engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously
for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization
as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the
judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to
indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases
where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack
adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments
often cite the judgment in Uma Devi(supra) to argue that no
vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees,
overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases
where regularization is appropriate. This selective application
distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively
weaponizing it against employees who have rendered
indispensable services over decades.”
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case,
considered the cases of employees whose services had been
terminated by the appellant-Department on certain occasions,
thereby depriving them of the benefits of regularization that had
otherwise accrued to them. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
such orders of termination would not, by themselves, dis-entitle
an employee from consideration for regularization, provided that
the employee otherwise satisfies the requirements laid down in
the judgment rendered in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra) .
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:09:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)

(9 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:54222-DB] [SAW-891/2026]
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors ., reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327 , has also
elaborated upon and explained the scope and ambit of paragraph
53 of the judgment rendered in State of Karnataka v. Uma
Devi (supra). While interpreting the principles laid down in
paragraph 53 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
Vinod Kumar (supra) has observed as under:-
"5. “……..this Court believes that the essence of employment
and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the
initial terms of appointment when the actual course of
employment has evolved significantly over time. The
continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular
employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in
permanent posts, and their selection through a process that
mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive
departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of
their initial engagement. Moreover, the appellants' promotion
process was conducted and overseen by a Departmental
Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more
than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature
of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such
temporary engagement being specified, merits a
reconsideration of their employment status.”
xxxxx
7. “The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also
distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointment
sunder scoring the importance of considering certain
appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with
the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have
been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of
regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations
or interviews as in the present case. Paragraph 53 of the Uma
Devi (supra) case is reproduced hereunder:
“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be
cases where irregular appointments (not illegal
appointment) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [(1966)
SCC Online SC 23,R.N. Nanjundappa (1972) 1 SCC 409
and B.N. Nagarajan[(1979) 4 SCC 507 and referred to in
para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned
vacant posts might have been made and the employees
have continued to work for ten years or more but without
the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The
question of regularization of the services of such
employees may have to be considered on merits in the
light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases
above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that
context, the Union of India, the State Governments and
their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:09:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)

(10 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:54222-DB] [SAW-891/2026]
one-time measure, the services of such irregularly
appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly
sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the
courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that
regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant
sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases
where temporary employees or daily wagers are being
now employed. The process must be set in motion within
six months from this date. We also clarify that
regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice,
need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there
should be no further bypassing of the constitutional
requirement and regularising or making permanent, those
not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”
13. Similar view has also been reiterated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. &
Ors ., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 ; Prem Singh v.
State of U.P ., reported in (2019) 10 SCC 516 ; and Bhola Nath
v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors ., reported in 2026 INSC 99 .
This Court is of the view that abrupt termination of the services of
an employee by the respondent-Department is nothing, but a
mechanism adopted by the Department to deprive employees
from the fruits of regularization of their services. It is also noted
that despite the availability of work of a perennial nature in the
Department, appointments/engagements are made periodically to
escape from giving the appointments on a regular basis. In the
considered opinion of this Court, the practice adopted by the
Government is nothing but an attempt to deprive employees from
getting the regular service and, consequently, regular emoluments
for the work done by them. Therefore, in view of the judgments
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that
the petitioners-respondents are entitled to have their services
regularized and that no error has been committed by the learned
Single Bench in allowing their writ petitions.
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:09:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)

(11 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:54222-DB] [SAW-891/2026]
14. The Appeal, therefore, being devoid of force, is hereby
dismissed.
15. All pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
Crt_2 (2039)
S-A/109
Nidhi Rai
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:09:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)