Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 26 February, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:9618-DB] (1 of 6) [SAW-635/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 635/2023
Bhagwan Singh Chandawat S/o Shri Chotu Singh Chandawat,
Aged About 53 Years, Melawas, Tehsil Bavri, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Ayurved
And Indian Medical Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved
University, Karwar, Jodhpur - Nagaur Highway Road,
Jodhpur (Raj.) Through The Registrar.
3. Registrar, Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved
University, Karwar Jodhpur- Nagaur Highway Road,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 650/2023
Mahendra Singh S/o Kishore Singh, Aged About 33 Years,
Chandpole Chauka, Jnv Colony, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Ayurved And Indian Medical Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishanan Rajasthan University
Karwar Jodhpur, Nagaur Highway Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)
Through The Registrar.
3. Registrar, Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan
University, Karwar Jodhpur Nagaur Highway Road,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 687/2023
Omprakash S/o Shri Bohra Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Village Basni Benda, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
(Downloaded on 08/03/2024 at 08:57:56 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9618-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-635/2023]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Ayurved
And Indian Medical Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishanan Rajasthan University,
Karwar, Jodhpur-Nagaur Highway Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)
Through The Registrar.
3. Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishanan Rajasthan University,
Karwar, Jodhpur-Nagaur Highway Road, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nikhil Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suniel Purohit
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order 26/02/2024
1. These special appeals have been preferred being aggrieved with the order dated 10.05.2023 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant was engaged as a Class IV employee through the placement agency in the respondent-University in year 2005 and has been discharging the duties since then. Learned counsel further submits that the prolonged engagement of the appellant gives right to him to be considered for regularization, but the same has not been allowed by the impugned judgment rendered by learned Single Judge.
2.1 Learned counsel for the appellants has also tried to draw a parity with one Manoj Dave, who was regularized despite having (Downloaded on 08/03/2024 at 08:57:56 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:9618-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-635/2023] been engaged on contractual basis on the post of L.D.C. by the respondent - University.
2.2 Learned counsel for the appellants after making the short submissions has taken this Court to the details of the impugned order and has harped upon the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge in the case of Jitendra Kumar Vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8660/2011) in which, learned Single Judge had directed the Jai Narayan Vyas University to regularize the services of similarly situated employees and the precedent law of Jitendra Kumar (supra) has been upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He submits that a plethora of cases were decided on same point belonging to the same University by the Hon'ble Courts. 2.3 In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court:
(i) Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors. reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1806;
(ii) Narendra Kumar Tiwari & ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. Etc., reported in AIR 2018 Supreme Court 3589;
(iii) Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in AIR 2018 Supreme Court 233;
(iv) State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors. reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2587;
(v) Amarkant Raj Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3080.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention of this Court towards the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding the judgment of Jitendra Kumar (supra) and has directly taken this Court to the para 2 of the (Downloaded on 08/03/2024 at 08:57:56 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:9618-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-635/2023] judgment of Jitendra Kumar (supra), in which, the fact has been noted by learned Single Judge that the Jai Narain Vyas University has regularized 10 class IV employees in regular pay-scale by appointing them class IV employees. Thus, as per learned counsel, the persons who have now been regularized are on the basis of operation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India whereby repeated directions in slightly different circumstances, but a common proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India will operate as the University itself had allowed to regularize 10 similarly situated employees. He further submits that the judgment of Jitendra Kumar (supra) was upheld upto the Hon'ble Apex Court and the number of judgments ensued out of the litigation but the common pedestal was Jitendra Kumar (supra) and Article 14 of the Constitution of India having been operated by the Courts.
3.1 Learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn the attention of this Court to the case of the present University, which is Ashish Dave vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.5/2022), decided on 20.07.2023, in which, this Court has upheld the impugned order, akin to the impugned order made in the present matter; the order reads as follows:-
"1. Heard.
2. The defect No.4 pointed out by the office is ignored. Other defects have already been cured.
3. This Special Appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 5.3.2021, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed SBCWP No.7612/2018 and has also dismissed SB Writ Contempt No.1185/2018.(Downloaded on 08/03/2024 at 08:57:56 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9618-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-635/2023]
4. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court alleging therein that he was employed by the respondent-university on contractual basis on the post of computer operator/programmer, however, the respondent-university has terminated his services for employing another contractual employee.
5. The writ petition was contested by the respondent- university while claiming that it has never employed the petitioner on contractual basis. It is also asserted that the petitioner was engaged by a contractor i.e. Royal Guards Security Services and as contractor has disengaged the petitioner, the respondent- university did not allow him to continue on the post of computer operator/programmer.
6. The petitioner has contested the claim of the respondent- university that he was not engaged by it on contract basis, but was engaged by a contractor i.e. Royal Guards Security Services.
7. The learned Single Judge, after hearing counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinizing the documents annexed by the petitioner along with the writ petition, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to produce any document in support of his claim that the respondent-university has engaged him on contract basis at any point of time. The learned Single Judge is of the opinion that careful scrutiny of the documents filed by the petitioner leads to a conclusion that the petitioner was engaged by the Royal Guards Security Services and monthly salary was also paid to him by the said Security Services.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and after carefully scrutinizing the documents annexed by the appellant along with the special appeal, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality in reaching to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to establish (Downloaded on 08/03/2024 at 08:57:56 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:9618-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-635/2023] employee-employer relationship between him and the respondent-university.
9. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any case for interference in this special appeal.
10. Hence, the special appeal is dismissed."
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the core issue is whether a placement agency person can be considered for regularization on issue of prolonged service is already adjudicated by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, the issue is no more res-integra, thus, while maintaining that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality in reaching to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to establish the employee-employers relationship between him and the respondent University because neither there is any precedents to operate Article 14 of the Constitution of India in favour of the present appellants, nor there is any judgment or law which could entitle an employee of placement agency to have been considered for regularization.
5. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the appellants in the present appeals.
6. Consequently, the present appeals are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN), J. (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J. 7-9-sudheer/-
(Downloaded on 08/03/2024 at 08:57:56 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)