A contractual employee cannot claim regular employment as a matter of right in the absence of an employer-employee relationship.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly accept and allow this writ petition; call for and examine entire record of the case and:-

I) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents directed to petitioner services termination order dated 01.04.2022 (Annexure-5) may kindly be quashed and set aside;

ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to continue the service of the petitioner on the post of Computer Operator with Machine through Rajasthan Medical Relief Society and payment of the remuneration may also be paid to them through Rajasthan Medical Relief Society without fresh contractual employee without replacing one set of contractual employee to other contractual employee;

iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondents the petitioner contract extended for the financial year 2022-23.

iv) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. As stated in the writ petition, the petitioner was engaged through placement agency on the post of Computer Operator (Man with Machine) to serve under the scheme floated by the State Government, namely Mukhya Mantri Nishulk Dawa Yojna & Mukhya Mantri Nishulk Janch Yojna, in which the petitioner worked in 2016 & 2017. It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was engaged to work on the post of Man with Machine on contract basis from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022, in support of which an agreement to this effect has been placed on record as Annexure-2.

3. Grievance of the petitioner by filing the present petition is that work performance of the petitioner during the contractual period has been upto the mark and despite that his contractual period has not been extended beyond 31.03.2022 and further alleged that without providing any opportunity to the petitioner his services have been terminated and the respondents want to replace the petitioner with another contractual employees and prayed that he may be allowed to continue further.

4. Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the writ petition submitted that without there being any reasonable cause the respondents have terminated his services, that too without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and prayed to continue his services.

5. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.K. Suresh & Anr. v. Food Corporation of India & Ors. reported in (2018) 17 Supreme Court Cases 641 wherein para No.7, has held as under:-

"7. In the first place, the Appellants failed to adduce any evidence to prove existence of any relationship between them and the FCI; Second, when the documents on record showed that the Appellants were appointed by the FCI Head Load Workers Co-Operative Society but not by the FCI then obviously the remedy of the Appellants, if at all, in relation to their any service dispute was against the said Society being their employer but not against the FCI; Third, the FCI was able to prove with the aid of evidence that the Appellants were in the employment of the said Society whereas the Appellants were not able to prove with the aid of any documents that they were appointed by the FCI and how and on what basis they claimed to be in the employment of the FCI except to make an averment in the writ petitions in that behalf. It was, in our opinion, not sufficient to grant any relief to the Appellants."

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another judgment in the matter of Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Ltd. v. Piyush Kant Sharma reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 842 in para 8, has held as under:-

"8. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, we are of the opinion that th