The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for petitioners to provide evidence to support their claims and the interpretation of previous court directions regarding the State's obligations in employment disputes.

JUDGMENT

1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking various directions. The directions prayed for, in SBCWP No.15560/2021 by way of illustration, reads as infra:

"It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioners may kindly be allowed: -

A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, Order Dated 03.02.2021 (Annexure-14) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to permitted the petitioners to work on the post in question till regulars selected candidates made available for the post in question as per the decision taken by the government.

C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to not to take contractual employees in place of any contractual employee.

D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction respondents may kindly be directed to have contract directly to the petitioners and their salary may also be paid directly not through the placement agency.

E. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to pay monthly salary of the petitioners through cheques/online payment/RTGS/online banking system and restrained to made cash payment to the petitioners.

F. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to following the mandate of law as interpreted in the case of Shiv Prasad Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and the respondents may kindly be directed to decide the representation of the petitioners, within a time frame, in the light of the adjudication in the case of Mukesh Kumar Khatik (supra), which they are ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

G. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.

H. Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs."

2. The above prayers have been made by the petitioners, who have been engaged through placement agencies by the respondents for performing various duties.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made submissions that similar nature issues, as raised in the present writ petitions, have been dealt with by a Coordinate Bench of this court at Japur Bench in Deepak Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6232/2019 and large number of other connected matters, decided on 06.04.2022, wherein similar nature prayers have been rejected.

4. Counsel for the petitioners made submissions that though the Division Bench in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Ranglal & Ors. : D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1885/2018, decided on 01.08.2019 made observations, the respondents have so far not followed the said directions.

5. In the case of Deepak Kumar Gupta (supra), the Coordinate Bench after dealing with large number of orders/judgments cited, came to the following conclusion:

"14. Admittedly, there is no relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and the respondents as the offer of appointment was given to the petitioners by the placement agency and the salary/remuneration was also paid to the petitioners by the placement agency. Initially, the contract was for a period of one year and the term of petitioners' services was further extended from time to time by the placement agency. The Rules of 2022 referred by the counsel for the petitioners relate to the persons appointed by the State Government on contract basis through public advertisement and admittedly the petitioners were not engaged as contractual employees directly by the State Government rather were appointed by the placement agency, as such the Rules of 2022 are not at all applicable in the case of the petitioners.

15. In view of the above discussion, these writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the p