Ashok Singh S/O Shri Matadeen ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 5421 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5421 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 3 August, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

Ashok Singh S/O Shri Matadeen ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 August, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8392/2022

Ashok Singh S/o Shri Matadeen Singh, R/o Dhani Khatikan Tehsil
Paota, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Consolidated Child
        Development Services, 2, Jalpath, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur,
        Rajasthan.
2.      Child   Development           Plan      Officer,         Consolidate   Child
        Development Services, Paota, Jaipur.
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

03/08/2022

1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, humbly and most respectfully prayed that-

a. By an appropriate writ, order or direction writ petition may kindly be accepted and allowed.

b. By an appropriate writ order or direction, impugned order dated 19.04.2022 (Annexure-1) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

c. By an appropriate writ order or direction, respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner to serve his duties as before for the post of Data Entry Operator at the office of respondent No.2 under PMMVV Scheme.

d. Any other relief which is deem fit and proper."

(2 of 4) [CW-8392/2022]

2. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed through placement

agency namely i.e. Radheshyam Service Agency, Karoli, Kotputli

(Jaipur) on the post of 'Data Entry Operator' purely on contract

basis. Neither the petitioner was appointed by the respondents nor

services of the petitioner have been terminated by the State-

respondents and no documents along with the writ petition has

been filed by the petitioner showing that he was appointed by the

State-respondents.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

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

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another judgment in the

matter of Rajasthan State Road Development and

Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. Piyush Kant Sharma

(3 of 4) [CW-8392/2022]

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."

6. 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, no documents along with the writ petition

has been filed by the petitioner showing that he was appointed 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

(4 of 4) [CW-8392/2022]

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India.