[2026:RJ-JP:6213]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10246/2015 Umesh Chand Jangid S/o Shri Nathhi Singh, By Caste Jangid Khati, Village Karomev, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Near Civil Lines, Jaipur Raj. Through

2. Executive Director Administration, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Quarter, Jaipur

3. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Vidhyadhar Nagar Depot, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Surbhi Singhal, Mr. Bantoo Mali with Mr. N.K. Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yash Joshi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Judgment

10/02/2026

1. This writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 29.08.2011 and 10.06.2015, praying that the orders may be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to continue in the service and also to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner, with all consequential benefits.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide Annexure-1, the petitioner was engaged for performing duties of driver-cum-conductor; however, without any cogent reasons, the petitioner’s services were terminated. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the termination order by filing a writ petition S.B. No.7709/2014, whereby this Court directed the petitioner to approach Respondent No.1- RSRTC by filing a representation and directed Respondent No.1 to consider and decide the representation by passing a speaking order. It is also contended that the order passed by Respondent No.1 pursuant to the direction dated 11.09.2014, at Annexure-7, was passed without any justification. It is contended that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing and that without considering the fact that the petitioner could not remain present due to unavoidable circumstances. Therefore, the same may be set aside.

3. Contrarily, it is contended that the petitioner has no vested right to continue in service and also has no vested right to get regularization or to continue in the services of Respondent No.1- RSRTC, as the nature of the petitioner’s service was contractual and the petitioner himself executed a contract, as Annexure-1, in which Condition No.9 specifically stipulates regarding completion of 268 days of presence. The respondent, after receipt of the representation of the petitioner pursuant to the order passed in S.B. Writ Petition No.7709/2014, rightly terminated the petitioner's contract. It is also contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any regularization or consequential benefits as the petitioner was not an employee of RSRTC; therefore, the present petition is misconceived and deserves dismissal.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. At the outset, it is enough to state that the petitioner was not an employee of the respondent department. The petitioner was on a contractual engagement with the respondent department and as per Condition No.9 of the contract, it was specifically mentioned that the contract will stand terminated if the petitioner does not remain present for a specific period of time. The earlier order passed in the writ petition was only to the extent that the representation of the petitioner shall be considered by the respondent department and a speaking order be passed. The department, after considering the representation of the petitioner, decided the same vide Annexure-7, which is a speaking order.

6. In light of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned stay order and therefore, the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.

7. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/103