The Rajasthan High Court has raised concerns regarding the State government's sluggish attitude towards handling litigation cases in which it is involved, emphasizing the need for a more proactive approach.

Justice Ganesh Ram Meena has additionally requested the governor's intervention in the issue, highlighting that previous attempts to inform senior officials within the State government have failed to address the problem.

On March 15, the Court mentioned the matter when a state counsel requested additional time to submit a reply in a case, despite being served notice four years prior.

"The lethargic approach of the respondent-authority shows that the respondents are not acting as a welfare State and such kind of approach may lead to catastrophic situation for the whole litigation and justice system for which the poor unemployed litigants are coming to the Courts," the Court said.

The judge remarked that this instance was not an isolated occurrence.

In this context, the Court recalled a recent incident where no State lawyers appeared for scheduled hearings on two or three occasions, despite the case being initiated by the state itself.

Justice Ram Meena noted that similar issues had been brought to the attention of the State government previously, but unfortunately, no action had been taken to address them. Therefore, the Court expressed the opinion that the matter should now be brought to the attention of the Governor, enabling him to issue necessary instructions to the State government.

The Court was handling a service dispute concerning the appointment of the petitioners to the position of Teacher Grade-III (Special Education). The petitions were filed before the Court during the years 2018-19.

According to the Court's March 15 order, the case papers were delivered to the office of the State government's counsel on January 22, 2020. Subsequently, the State counsel requested extensions to respond in February 2020 and September 2023. Upon the case being listed on March 15, the state counsel once more requested additional time to provide a reply.

Although the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the State's request, it eventually granted one final opportunity for the State to file a reply, allowing a two-week extension. Additionally, the Court cautioned that if the State fails to submit a reply by the next scheduled listing date, it would be liable to pay ₹10,000 to each of the four petitioners.