Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raja Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:41688) on 2 December, 2023
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:41688]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7347/2020
1. Raja Ram S/o Shri Bhagwana Ram, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Village Madasar, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan.
2. Vimala Vishnoi W/o Shri Ravindra Kumar, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Vilage Madasar, Tehsil Pokran, Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan.
3. Hukam Singh S/o Shri Mool Singh, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Sagra, Chandan Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
4. Bulkesh Kumari W/o Shri Rajkumar, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Maharampur, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
5. Khet Singh S/o Shri Chain Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Bahadur Singh Ki Dhani, Satyaya, Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan.
6. Priyanka W/o Shri Ramnarayan Vishnoi, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 794, Bhomaniyo Ki Dhani, Bhinyasar, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
7. Mainka W/o Shri Rameshwarlal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Jawahar Nagar, Padiyal, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
8. Ranjeet Kaur W/o Shri Guru Vachan Singh, Aged About
36 Years, R/o Shaktinagar, Bharamsar, Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan.
9. Shankara Ram S/o Shri Omaram, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Village Madasar, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Medical And Health Service, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Director (Public Health), Department Of Medical And
Health Services, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Norang Ram Dayanand Dhukia Shikshan Sansthan,
Through Its Director, Norang Ram Dayanand Dhukia
Shikshan Sansthan, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
4. Director, Norag Ram Dayanand Dhukia Shikshan Sansthan
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 02/12/2023 at 08:43:34 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:41688] (2 of 4) [CW-7347/2020]
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None present
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta for Mr. K.S.
Rajpurohit, AAG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
02/12/2023
1. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
controversy involved in this petition is squarely covered by the
order passed by this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of
Renu & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.7998/2020), decided on 24.08.2022. The operative
portion of the order reads as under :-
"6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. 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
[2023:RJ-JD:41688] (3 of 4) [CW-7347/2020]
in that behalf. It was, in our opinion, not sufficient to
grant any relief to the appellants."
8. 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."
9. These writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be
dismissed for the reasons; firstly, there is no relationship of
employee and employer between the petitioners and the
State-respondents, because the petitioners were appointed
through service provider; secondly, the petitioners have failed
to submit any document on record with regard to their
appointment orders issued by the State-respondents; thirdly,
[2023:RJ-JD:41688] (4 of 4) [CW-7347/2020]
there is no privity of contract of appointment between the
petitioners and the State-respondents, fourthly, the
petitioners have failed to implead the service provider as
party-respondent in these writ petitions, 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.
10. In that view of the matter, these writ petitions stand
dismissed. All the pending applications stand disposed of.
Copy of the order be separately placed in each connected file."
2. No one appears on behalf of the petitioners to refute the
applicability of the aforementioned judgment.
3. In light of aforequoted order, the present petition is also
dismissed in terms of the order passed in Renu (Supra). All
pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
167-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
