Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Navin Saini vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 11 April, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023/RJJD/009726]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7207/2020
Navin Saini S/o Mahaveer Prasad Saini, Aged About 27 Years, R/
o Ward No. 18, Near Kisan Hostel, Sardarsehar, District Churu,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Finance (Budget) Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Excise Commissioner, Excise Department, Udaipur
4. The Additional Excise Commissioner, Excise Department,
Udaipur.
5. The District Excise Officer, District Churu, Rajasthan.
6. The Patrolling Officer, Excise Preventive Force, Sardarsehr,
Churu.
7. Bahumanya Management And Consultant Llp, Through Its
Partner Rajendra Saini, D-188A Agarsen Nagar, District
Churu, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None present
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Girish Kumar Sankhla
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
12/04/2023
1. Mr. Sankhla, learned counsel for the respondents submits
that the petitioner was engaged by the respondent - Department
through placement agency and he was not a contractual employee
per-se.
2. He relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 22.07.2021
rendered in the case of Bhupen Gehlot Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8605/2021 and submitted
[2023/RJJD/009726] (2 of 3) [CW-7207/2020]
that even special appeal filed there against has been rejected by a
Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 19.08.2021.
3. In judgment dated 22.07.2021, in the matter of Bhupen
Gehlot (supra), this Court has held thus:-
8. In the opinion of this Court, by no stretch of
imagination, petitioner can be considered as a
contractual employee. The principle - "one
contractual employee cannot be replaced by
another set of contractual employee", thus, does
not apply.
9. The petitioner has failed to satisfy the Court as
to whether there is a sanctioned post for
Audiologist & Speech Therapist for
audiological services and apart from that whether
his engagement was against such sanctioned
post.
10. So far as the interim order dated 18.08.2020
cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, is
concerned, the said interim
order was granted observing that the petitioner
therein was working on contract basis on the post
of Computer Operator with machine since 2008,
whereas in the present case the petitioner's
engagement that too through service provider is
of 2019 itself.
11. So far as judgment of Ramesh Chandra Nayak
(supra) is concerned, the case related to a
contractual employees, which were being
replaced by fresh candidates, appointed through
placement agency. Similar is the situation in the
case of Jagdish Prasad Yadav (supra), as is
evident from para No.2 and 4 of the
writ petition.
12. The argument of learned counsel that this
Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court has
repeatedly held that engagement through
placement agency is illegal, in the opinion of this
Court, is not available to the petitioner, who
himself is a beneficiary of a
placement agency.
13. The principle as relied upon by learned
counsel for the petitioner is applicable only when
the contractual employees are engaged on adhoc
[2023/RJJD/009726] (3 of 3) [CW-7207/2020]
basic, on fixed pay against sanctioned posts,
that too by the State awaiting regular
recruitment.
14. This Court does not find any merit and
substance in the present writ petition, for which it
is hereby dismissed.
15. Stay petition also stands dismissed."
4. The Division Bench while affirming the above referred order
of this Court has held thus:-
"Indisputably, the services of the appellant
were provided to the respondents by the
placement agency. It is not disputed before us
that the contract existing between the
respondent and the placement agency has
already come to an end. There was no privity of
contract and direct master and servant
relationship between the appellant and the
respondents. The appellant being not a
contractual employee engaged by the
respondents directly, he cannot claim
continuance of contractual employment with the
respondents for indefinite period, when the
contract entered into between the placement
agency and the respondents has come to an
end.
For the aforementioned reasons, we are in
agreement with the view taken by the learned
Single Judge (sic) of this Court. "
5. Following the above referred judgments, the present writ
petition is dismissed.
6. All interlocutory applications under Article 226(3) of the
Constitution of India and stay application stand disposed of
accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
48-of 11.04.2023 akansha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
