Rule 3 of Rajasthan Contractual Hiring Rules 2022 Applies to Agency Hires Appointed Via Public Ad: Rajasthan High Court - 2025-08-26

Legal Articles | Court & Judgment Updates

Rajasthan High Court Rules Agency-Hired Contractual Staff Covered by 2022 Rules if Appointed Through Public Ad

JODHPUR: The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that contractual employees hired through placement agencies are entitled to the benefits of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022, provided they meet the specified criteria, including appointment through a public advertisement. A division bench of Justice Bipin Gupta and Justice Munnuri Laxman declared that the mode of appointment—whether direct or via an agency—cannot be a ground for discrimination.

The court allowed a batch of writ petitions led by Rodu Lal, who, along with others, was employed as a Data Entry Operator under the MGNREGA scheme through placement agencies.

Background of the Case

The petitioners were hired on a contractual basis through placement agencies for posts created under government schemes with due departmental and financial concurrence. In January 2022, the state government enacted the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022, to regulate the services of such contractual employees.

The petitioners were denied the benefits of these rules on the grounds that they were not directly hired by the government. They challenged this exclusion, arguing that it created an arbitrary and discriminatory classification between two sets of contractual employees performing the same duties, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution. They sought either their inclusion under the Rules of 2022 or for Rule 3 of the said rules to be declared unconstitutional.

Arguments from Both Sides

• Petitioners' Arguments:

  • The petitioners contended that the mode of appointment (direct vs. agency) is not a valid reason to deny them the benefits of a welfare legislation like the Rules of 2022.
  • They argued that they fulfilled the essential conditions of Rule 3: their posts were created by the Administrative Department with Finance Department approval, and their selection followed a public advertisement process, albeit initiated by the agency.
  • Relying on the Supreme Court's constitutional bench judgment in Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works Etc. Vs. Union of India , they asserted that the State, as the principal employer, cannot evade its responsibility towards workers hired through contractors.

• State's Arguments:

  • The respondents maintained that the Rules of 2022 were intended only for individuals directly appointed by the government on a contractual basis.
  • They argued that since the petitioners were hired by placement agencies, there was no privity of contract with the state.
  • The State contended that the pre-condition of appointment via a "public advertisement" issued by the government was not met, thus disqualifying the petitioners.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The High Court meticulously analyzed Rule 3 of the Rules of 2022, identifying four essential conditions for its application: 1. The post must be created by the Administrative Department. 2. It must have the concurrence of the Finance Department. 3. The appointment must be on a contractual basis. 4. The selection must have been made after inviting applications through a public advertisement.

The bench observed that the Rule itself makes no distinction between a direct contract and an indirect one through an agency. The State, in an affidavit, had already admitted that the petitioners were appointed as per norms, possessed the requisite qualifications, and performed the same duties as their directly-hired counterparts.

The court emphasized the welfare nature of the legislation, stating its objective was to regulate previously unregulated contractual employment. It held that the State's interpretation would defeat the legislative intent by creating a "class within a class."

The judgment prominently cited the Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works case, reinforcing the principle that the principal employer remains liable for welfare measures even for contract labour. The Court noted:

"The denial of benefit of the Rules of 2022 to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons having been appointed through placement agency is not sustainable. Thus, the interpretation of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2022 as done by the respondent-State Government... is an incorrect interpretation against the intent and object which are sought to be achieved by the Rules of 2022."

The Court clarified that the crucial element is the "public advertisement," which ensures transparency and prevents back-door entries, irrespective of whether the advertisement was issued by the government or the placement agency.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court allowed the writ petitions and directed the State to consider the case of each contractual employee individually, based on the criteria laid down in Rule 3. The Court ordered:

"The respondents shall consider the individual case of each contractual employee... 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 concurrence of the Finance Department and the appointment has been through issuance of a public advertisement further without there being any differentiation whether the public advertisement has been issued by the State Government or by the placement agency."

This landmark judgment provides significant relief to thousands of contractual employees hired through agencies in Rajasthan, ensuring their services are regulated and bringing them on par with their directly-hired colleagues, provided their initial appointment was transparent and merit-based.