Rajasthan High Court

Ashok Kumar S/O Shri Mahaveer ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 April, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5829/2022

1.    Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 26
      Years, Resident Of Village Hamirwas, District Jhunjhunu.
2.    Ankur Saini S/o Shri Durga Dutt Saini, Aged About 23
      Years, Resident Of Nawodi Kothi, Purohit Ji Ki Dhani,
      Sikar.
3.    Asif Ahmed S/o Manjur Ahmed, Aged About 39 Years,
      Resident Of 177, Jawahar Colony, Nai Abadi Gadi, District
      Banswara
4.    Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Santosh Kumar, Aged About 27
      Years, Resident Of Near Chungi No. 03, Udaipurwati,
      Jhunjhnu
5.    Navdeep Singh Tanwar S/o Shri Ajeet Singh Tanwar, Aged
      About 28 Years, Resident Of H.no. 201, Village Dancholi,
      Post Dhantri, Tehsi Narnaul, District Mahendragarh
6.    Mohmmad        Amjad        Badgujar          S/o        Maqsood   Ahmed
      Badgujar, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 64,
      Jagwalpura Road, Rahim Nagar, Sikar
7.    Mukesh Kumar Vishnoliya S/o Shri Laxman Ram, Aged
      About 30 Years, Resident Of Dhani Jhkhnannwali, Lakhan
      Niwas, Adarh Nagar, Vpo Chirana, Tehsil Nawalgarh,
      Jhunjhunu
8.    Priyanka Sharma D/o Shri Chandra Prakash Sharma,
      Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of W.no. 38, Modi Kothi,
      Radhakrishanpura, Sikar
9.    Rajendra Kumar Chaubisa S/o Shri Nand Lal, Aged About
      32 Years, Resident Of Village Brahmano Ka Hundar, Post
      Madar, District Udaipur
10.   Kiran Choudhary D/o Shri Bhanwar Singh Khichar, Aged
      About 26 Years, Resident Of C/o Vikas Bhaskar, Ghassu,
      Sikar
11.   Gautam Divya S/o Shri Bhanwara Ram, Aged About 27
      Years, Resident Of Noowa, Nagaur
12.   Ramdeva Ram S/o Shri Ganpat Lal, Aged About 25 Years,
      Resident Of Bhawanipur, Shahpura, Sikar
13.   Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Gopal Ram, Aged About 26 Years,

                   (Downloaded on 25/04/2022 at 09:42:25 PM)
                                        (2 of 6)               [CW-5829/2022]


      Resident Of Village Mallasi Jheegar Chotti, Sikar
14.   Ranjeet Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Dhanna Ram Yadav, Aged
      About 24 Years, Resident Of W.no. 08, Durga Kaali Koti,
      Ranoli, Sikar
15.   Subodh Sharma S/o Shri Ramkaran, Aged About 30
      Years, Resident Of Dinarpura, Sikar
16.   Manisha D/o Shri Ramkaran Das W/o Shri Raman
      Choudhary, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village
      Suryavas, Tehsil Dataramgarh, Sikar
17.   Mukesh Kumar Saini S/o Shri Suresh Kumar Saini, Aged
      About 23 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 07, Malsisar,
      Jhunjhunu
18.   Asha Yadav D/o Shri Rameshwar Lal Yadav W/o Shri
      Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of
      Plot No. 155, Rajiv Nagar, Naya Kheda, Vidhyadhar Nagar,
      Jaipur
19.   Suman Godara D/o Shri Jagdish Singh Godara W/o Shri
      Ummed Singh Poonia, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of
      Gram Gungara, Vpo Piproli, Sikar
20.   Kailash Chandra Chaubisa S/o Shri Sohan Lal Choubisa,
      Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Brahmino Ka
      Sundar, Post Madar, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur
21.   Mayank Suthar S/o Shri Durga Shankar Suthar, Aged
      About 24 Years, Resident Of Devra Gali, Chawand, Tehsil
      Sarada, Udaipur
22.   Manish Kala S/o Shri Nathulal Kalal, Aged About 27 Years,
      Resident Of 01, New Bhopalw Bhopalpura, Udaipur
23.   Gajendra Dangi S/o Shri Manohar Lal Dangi, Aged About
      32 Years, Resident Of Bus Stand Ke Piche, Sirohi Road,
      Pindwada, Sirohi
24.   Sanjay Lohar S/o Shri Bheru Lal Lohar, Aged About 24
      Years, Resident Of Loharo Ka Mohalla, Thakar, Tehsil
      Sarada, Udaipur
25.   Anil Panchal S/o Shri Kanti Lal Panchal, Aged About 31
      Years, Resident Of Sundani, Tehsil Gadi, District Banswara
26.   Nikita Patidar D/o Shri Mukesh Patidar, Aged About 25
      Years, Resident Of 315, W.no. 9, Tehsil Daloda, Ridrahalal
      Muha, Mansur, M.p.


                  (Downloaded on 25/04/2022 at 09:42:25 PM)
                                              (3 of 6)                  [CW-5829/2022]


27.     Harshit Paliwal S/o Shri Vijesh Kumar Paliwal, Aged About
        23 Years, Resident Of Sakroda, Tehsil Mavli, Udaipur
28.     Nisha Patwa D/o Shri Vishnu Patwa, Aged About 25 Years,
        Resident Of H-4, Krishna Nagar, Chittorgarh
29.     Praful Chaubisa S/o Shri Motilal Chaubisa, Aged About 23
        Years, Resident Of Village Mainpuriya, Tehsil Ballabhgarh,
        Udaipur
30.     Pooja Bala D/o Shri Arun Bala, Aged About 28 Years,
        Resident Of Rnt, Udaipur
31.     Anisha Agarwal S/o Shri Krishan Kumar Agarwal, Aged
        About 25 Years, Resident Of 7, Agrasen Nagar, Udaipur
32.     Neha Verma D/o Shri Gopal Verma, Aged About 27 Years,
        Resident Of 10/16, Housing Board Colony, Chanderia
        Chittorgarh
                                                                      ----Petitioners
                                       Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
        Medical Education Department, Government Secretariat,
        Jaipur (Raj.)
2.      The Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department,
        Government Secretariat, Jaipur
3.      Rajasthan        Medical       Education          Society,    Through     Its
        Secretary, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Janta Colony, Govind
        Marg, Jaipur
4.      The    Directorate           Medical        Education,        Through     Its
        Commissioner Having Its Office At Chikitsa Shiksha
        Bhawan, Janta Colony, Govind Marg, Jaipur
                                                                    ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad.

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

19/04/2022

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking

following relief(s):-

(4 of 6) [CW-5829/2022]

"It is, therefore humbly prayed that Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:- The impugned decision taken for dispensing with the services of the petitioners in pursuance of letter dated 29.03.2022 (Annx.8) may kindly be declared arbitrary and illegal and accordingly the letter dated 29.03.2022 (Annx.8) and further actions taken in pursuance thereof may kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of justice.

The respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioners to continue and perform their duties on their respective posts till 31.03.2023 or till regular selections are made by the respondents akin to the directions issued vide order dated 01.04.2022 (Annx.11) for extension of services of candidates appointed on Urgent Temporary Basis by the respondents, in the interest of justice.

Any other appropriate order, which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be passed in favour of the petitioners."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were

appointed by the Sikar Ex. Servicemen Welfare Co-operative

Society Ltd. Sikar ("hereinafter to be referred as service

provider"). The petitioners joined on 12.08.2020 thereafter

continued in service with the Department upto 31.03.2022 as per

the contract of the State Government with the service provider. On

31.03.2022, the services of the petitioners were terminated by the

service provider as their contract period was over with the service

provider. The petitioners have failed to place on record any

documentary evidence to show that they were appointed by the

State-respondents, rather the documentary evidence placed by

the petitioners on record shows that they were appointed by the

service provider and not by the State-respondents. Apart from it,

(5 of 6) [CW-5829/2022]

no order terminating services of the petitioners has ever been

passed by the State-respondents.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have

worked with the State Government during difficult time of Covid-

19 pandemic, therefore, their services deserve to be continued for

one year or till regularly selected candidates are made available.

Counsel further submits that the period of similarly situated

persons with the State Government has been extended for a

period of one year.

4. Counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment passed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Andi Mukta Sadguru

Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav

Smarak Trust & Ors. Vs. V.R. Rudani & Ors. reported in

(1989) 2 Supreme Court Cases 691.

5. Heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.K. Suresh &

Anr. Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors. reported in (2018)

17 SCC 641 in Para-7 has held as under:-

"7.In the first place, the appellants failed to adduce any evidence to prove existence of any relationship between them and FCI; second when the documents on record showed that the appellants were appointed by FCI Head Load Workers Cooperative Society but not by FCI then obviously the remedy of the appellants, if at all, in relation to their any service dispute was against the said society being their employer but not against FCI; third, FCI was able to prove with the aid of evidence that the appellants were in the employment of the said society whereas the appellants were not able to prove with the aid of any documents that they were appointed by FCI and how and on what basis they claimed to be in the employment of FCI except to make an averment in the writ petitions in that

(6 of 6) [CW-5829/2022]

behalf. It was, in our opinion, not sufficient to grant any relief to the appellants."

7. This writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be

dismissed for the reasons; firstly, there is no relationship of

employee and employer between the petitioners and the State-

respondents; secondly, the petitioners were employee of the

service provider and no contract agreement was there between

the petitioners and the State-respondents; lastly, in view of the

judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

K.K. Suresh (supra), I am not inclined to exercise the

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India.