Rajasthan High Court
Kamlesh Meena S/O Shri Surja Ram ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 April, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2139/2021
Kamlesh Meena S/o Shri Surja Ram Meena, R/o Neemwali Dhani,
Mathuradas Pura, Langareeyas, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Local Self, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur
2. Director, Department Of Local Self, Government Of
Rajasthan, G-3, Raj Mahal Palace, Residential Area, Civil
Line Phatak, Bais Godam, Jaipur.
3. Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Through Its Commissioner,
Greater/haritage Pandit Deen Dayal, Updhayay Bhawan,
Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Motor Garaj, Nagar Nigam Jaipur,
Civil Lines Zone, Near Lal Kothi Samsan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Kumar Tailor.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Archana for Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
29/04/2022
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking
following relief(s):-
"It it, therefore, prayed that the writ
petition may kindly be allowed the
respondent be restrained/Prohibited for
issuing any list of appointment on the post
of driver without issuing advertisement. It
may further be directed to the respondents
to regularize the services of the petitioners
on the post of drivers who are working for
last so many years in the municipal
corporation, Jaipur.
(2 of 4) [CW-2139/2021]
Any other relief which the Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper may kindly
be passed in favour of the petitioner."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed
through placement agency on the post of 'Driver' purely on
contract basis. Thus by virtue of appointment being made by the
placement agency, the petitioner does not appear to be employee
of the State-respondents in any manner, as such there is no
relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and
the State-respondents. The petitioner has failed to place on record
any documentary evidence like appointment order and termination
order, to show that he was appointed by the State-respondents.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
working on the post of Driver for last so many years, therefore,
prayed that the services of the petitioner be regularized as Driver
in the Municipal Corporation.
4. Counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition.
5. Heard counsel for the parties 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 Supreme Court Cases 641 wherein para No.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 the
FCI; Second, when the documents on
record showed that the Appellants were
appointed by the FCI Head Load Workers
Co-Operative Society but not by the 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 the FCI; Third, the FCI was able to
prove with the aid of evidence that the
(3 of 4) [CW-2139/2021]
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
the FCI and how and on what basis they
claimed to be in the employment of the FCI
except to make an averment in the writ
petitions in that behalf. It was, in our
opinion, not sufficient to grant any relief to
the Appellants."
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another judgment in the
matter of Rajasthan State Road Development and
Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. Piyush Kant Sharma
reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 842 in para 8, has held as
under:-
"8. Having heard the learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respective
parties, we are of the opinion that the High
Court has committed a grave error in
passing such an interim order restraining
the Appellant Corporation from appointing
new set of contractual employees in place
of original writ Petitioners. No reasons,
whatsoever have been assigned by the
High Court while passing the impugned
interim order. The High Court has failed to
appreciate and consider the fact that
according to the Appellant Corporation,
there was no regular sanctioned post of
Computer Operator in the Appellant
Corporation and that there was no
employer-employee relationship between
the original writ Petitioner and the
Appellant Corporation and that the original
writ Petitioner was a employee appointed
by the contractor on contractual basis and
worked with the Appellant Corporation on
contractual basis. As the writ petition is
pending before the High Court, we refrain
ourselves from making any further
observations on merits. However, we are of
the opinion that in the facts and
circumstances of the case narrated
hereinabove, the High Court ought not to
have passed such an interim order. Under
the circumstances, the impugned interim
order passed by the High Court requires to
be quashed and set aside."
(4 of 4) [CW-2139/2021]
8. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be
dismissed for the reasons; firstly, there is no relationship of
employee and employer between the petitioner and the State-
respondents; secondly, the petitioner was employee of the
placement agency and neither appointment order nor termination
order was passed by the State-respondents; lastly, in view of the
judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
K.K. Suresh (supra) & Rajasthan State Road Development
and Construction Corporation Ltd. (supra), I am not inclined
to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
9. In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands dismissed
and the interim order stands vacated.
10. All the pending applications stand disposed of.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
MG/46
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
