[2026:RJ-JP:10730]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16312/2025 Sandeep Kumar Mishra S/o Late Shri Pawan Kumar Mishra, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Near Shri Ramji Haweli, Ward No.11, Bissau, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director And Special Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. The Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Ramgarh- Shekawati District Sikar.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.P. Saini.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yadvendra Patel for Mr. G.S.Gill, AAG.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

13/03/2026

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

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the facts in the present case is similar to the facts in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11737/2024 (Rodu Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 26.08.2025.

3. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 26.08.2025 passed in the case of Rodu Lal (Supra) reads as follows:- operative portion of the order dated 26.08.2025 reads as follows:-

“41. In light of the aforesaid facts & fndings 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 havee been appointed through placement agency afer issuance of public adveertisement are to be coveered under the ambit of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2022. Since, the abovee rule has been read harmoniously in faveour 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 clarifes 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 indiveidual 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 Administrativee Department with the concurrence of the Finance Department and the appointment has been through issuance of a public adveertisement further without there being any differentiation whether the public adveertisement has been issued by the State Goveernment or by the placement agency. (ii) If the case of the indiveidual is in conformation with the Rule 3 of the Rules of 2022, as interpreted abovee, then the beneft of the Rules of 2022 shall be extended to such petitioners.

43. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”

4. Learned counsel for the respondent is unable to refute tat the issue involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated dated 26.08.2025 passed in the case of Rodu Lal (Supra).

4. In light of the order cited above, the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as in the case of Rodu Lal & Ors. (supra). The petitioner shall be at liberty to make a representation before the concerned authorities within a period of 15 days. On such representation, the concerned authorities are directed to dispose of the same in light of the decision passed in case of Rodu Lal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

5. All the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J

14-pradeep/-