[2026:RJ-JD:7345-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 165/2026

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary-

Cum-Director, Directorate Of Child Rights, 22/198, Kaveri Path, Sector-2, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Rajasthan State Child Protection Society, 22/198, Kaveri Path, Sector-2, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

3. The Assistant Director, District Child Protection Unit, Chittorgarh.

4. The Assistant Director, District Child Protection Unit, Jalore.

5. The Assistant Director, District Child Protection Unit, Pali.

----Appellants Versus

1. Naveen Kishore Kakerda S/o Shro Sohan Lal, Aged About

34 Years, R/o-3-C, Gandhi Nagar, Sector-5, Chittorgarh.

2. Pooja Teli D/o Shri Bheru Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o-

3-C, Gandhi Nagar, Sector-5 Chittorgarh.

3. Mahendra Chouhan S/o Shri Himmta Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o-10-B, Ramdev Colony, Jalore.

4. Dinesh Vaishnav S/o Shri Babudas Vaishnav, Aged About

37 Years, R/o-1-D-61, Old Housing Board, Pali.

5. Union Of India, Through The Joint Secretary, Ministry Of Women Child Development, Government Of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Dr. Praveen Khandelwal, AAG with Ms. Yashvi Khandelwal For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

10/02/2026

1. The matter comes up on an application (IA No.01/25) filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is hereby condoned.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the present controversy is covered by the judgment order dated 24.11.2025 passed by this Court in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.1002/2025 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Gautam Chand) and other connected matter. The operative portion of the judgment dated 24.11.2025, reads as under:-

“6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, this Hon’ble Court finds that the core issue in controversy pertains to the engagement and selection process of Protection Officers and Outreach Workers under the Mission Vatsalya framework. Both the existence of these posts as scheme- based functional positions and the selection mechanism prescribed for them stand expressly provided in the Mission Vatsalya Guidelines contained in Annexure–III. The contention of the State that engagement of such personnel may be effected through outsourcing under the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012, by relying upon the wide ambit of the definition of service under Section 2(20), cannot be accepted in the present factual backdrop.

7. This Court is of the considered view that once the State has adopted and undertaken to implement Mission Vatsalya, it is bound to adhere to the policy in its entirety, including the prescribed mode of selection through a duly constituted Selection Committee headed by the District Magistrate. The roles and responsibilities of Protection Officers and Outreach Workers, as reflected in the scheme, are sensitive and central to the objectives of child protection, rehabilitation, and welfare, and therefore any deviation from the structured selection mechanism would run contrary to the intent and integrity of the policy itself. 8. However, this Court does not deem it appropriate, in the facts of the present case, to direct the State to create sanctioned or encadred posts or to regularize such positions, as the Mission Vatsalya scheme does not envisage permanent cadre creation, and judicial directions cannot be issued mandating creation of posts or restructuring of administrative policy. To that extent, the direction issued by the Hon’ble Single Judge for creation of sanctioned posts cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.

9. Nevertheless, this Court is firmly of the opinion that engagement of Protection Officers and Outreach Workers through placement agencies under the RTPP Act, 2012, is impermissible, as the same w