{"id":9632,"date":"2026-09-09T05:52:22","date_gmt":"2026-09-09T05:52:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/?p=9632"},"modified":"2026-09-09T05:52:23","modified_gmt":"2026-09-09T05:52:23","slug":"28-years-later-rajasthan-hc-rejects-employees-claim-for-ldc-posts-under-1996-gender-based-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/28-years-later-rajasthan-hc-rejects-employees-claim-for-ldc-posts-under-1996-gender-based-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"28 Years Later, Rajasthan HC Rejects Employees\u2019 Claim for LDC Posts under 1996 Gender-Based Policy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Jaipur:<\/strong> Nearly 28 years after being appointed as Helper-I on compassionate grounds, a group of employees approached the Rajasthan High Court seeking appointment as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs), relying on a judgment that had struck down a discriminatory recruitment policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Ashutosh Kumar examined whether employees who had accepted their appointments in 1996 could claim the benefit of the subsequent ruling after remaining silent for nearly three decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Male Candidates Appointed as Helpers, Females as LDCs<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The dispute arose from a 1996 office order of the Rajasthan electricity department under which male and female candidates with the same Secondary qualification were appointed to different posts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Male candidates were appointed as Helper-I, while female candidates were appointed as LDCs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The employees argued that the distinction was based solely on gender and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They claimed that despite possessing the qualification for LDC, they were appointed as Helper-I, a post involving technical work relating to electricity lines and connections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The petitioners relied on the Rajasthan High Court’s 2023 judgment in Ashish Arora v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, which had struck down the policy to the extent that it discriminated between male and female candidates.
They argued that once the policy had been declared unconstitutional, similarly placed employees should also receive the benefit of that judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Benefit of Earlier Judgment Was Specifically Limited<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The Division Bench, however, noted that the Ashish Arora judgment itself had restricted the benefit of the ruling to cases that were already pending at the relevant time and would not create a fresh cause of action for other candidates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bench observed that this restriction formed part of the final directions in the judgment and had subsequently been upheld by a Division Bench. It had therefore attained finality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Employees Remained Silent for Nearly Three Decades<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The Court also noted that the employees had accepted their Helper-I appointments in 1996 and continued in those posts for about 27 years without raising any objection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They approached the Court only after another group of employees secured relief under the same policy.
Their argument that the discrimination constituted a continuing cause of action was not accepted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bench also further observed that their contention lacked the technical expertise required for Helper-I. The Court observed that they had continued performing the duties of the post for nearly three decades without challenging their appointments on that ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finding no error in the Single Judge’s decision, the High Court dismissed all the special appeals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jaipur: Nearly 28 years after being appointed as Helper-I on compassionate grounds, a group of employees approached the Rajasthan High Court seeking appointment as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs), relying on a judgment that had struck down a discriminatory recruitment policy. A Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Ashutosh Kumar examined whether employees who … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":9364,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_wppp_is_locked":false,"_wppp_selected_plans":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[29,69],"tags":[150],"class_list":["post-9632","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-top-stories","category-rajasthan-high-court","tag-rajasthan-legal-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9632","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9632"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9632\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9633,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9632\/revisions\/9633"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9364"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9632"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9632"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9632"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}