[2025:RJ-JD:53911]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23908/2025

1. Suresh Chandra Bamniya S/o Shri Bhurji Bamniya, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Nai Patan, Post Patan Tehsil Bagidora, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

2. Anil S/o Shri Dinesh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Nayatalab Post Bhimshour Tehsil Gadi, District Banswara. Rajasthan.

3. Durga Garasiya W/o Shri Ravindra Garasiya, Aged About

36 Years, R/o Naharpura, Tehsil Aanadpuri District Banswara, Rajasthan.

4. Kali Tabiyar D/o Shri Kailash Chandra W/o Shri Rajneesh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Dad Post Aanadpuri Tehsil Anandpuri, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Personnel (A-Ii) Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Principal Secretary, Tribal Area Development (Tad), Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Commissioner, Tribal Area Development (Tad), Department, Udaipur.

4. Director, Swachpariyojana, Udaipur.

5. Project Officer, Swachh Pariyojana, Banswara.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramdev Potalia.

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

15/12/2025

1. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter has been heard for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners were appointed as Block Coordinator-cum-Assistant Coordinator through the outsourcing agency by way of public advertisement.

The petitioners’ request for consideration to govern their services under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules of 2022’) was not considered on the ground that the petitioners’ services were not hired under any direct contract with the respondents and they are working through an outsourcing agency.

3. This controversy has already been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rodu Lal & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11737/2024 and connected batch of petitions, decided on

26.08.2025.

4. The operative portion of the order dated 26.08.2025 reads as follows:-

“40. This Court is further of the firm opinion that if the respondents continue with the services of the petitioners, without covering them under the Rules of 2022 would be against the principles as enumerated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments wherein the Court has opined that the practice of appointment of contractual employees without any rules would lead to a situation of exploitation by the employer. With this intent only, the Rules of 2022 have been framed and therefore, the benefit of the said rules cannot be denied to the petitioners and similarly situated persons merely on the count of having been appointed through placement agency.

41. In light of the aforesaid facts & findings and the judgments, this Court is of the opinion that Rule 3 of the Rules of 2022 has to be read harmoniously, whereby, the petitioners and similarly situated persons, who have been appointed through placement agency after issuance of public advertisement are to be covered under the ambit of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2022. Since, the above rule has been read harmoniously in favour of the petitioners, therefore, there is no requirement to decide question No. (b), which was framed under para 13. The harmonious reading of the Rule itself clarifies that, there ought to be no discrimination between the contractual employees appointed through placement agency as well as the contractual employees appointed directly.

42. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are allowed in the following terms:

(i) The respondents shall consider the individual case of each contractual employee, appointed prior to enforcement of the Rules of 2022 strictly in accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules of 2022, meaning thereby, that if an employee has been appointed on a post created by the Administrative Department with the concurren