Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sangeeta Jain vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:40967) on 28 November, 2023

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2023:RJ-JD:40967]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18364/2023
1.       Sangeeta Jain D/o Ram Bharose Lal Jain, Aged About 43
         Years, H.no. C-144, Dharam Narayan Ji Ka Hattha, Paota,
         Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2.       Beena Rakhecha D/o Govind Ram Solanki, Aged About 51
         Years, 27, Guru Raja Ram Nagar Ist, Inside Parihar Nagar,
         Badwasiya, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3.       Renu D/o Ganpat Lal, Aged About 46 Years, Sant Ravidas
         Nagar, Near Bhadwasiya Hospital, Bhadwasiya, Jodhpur,
         Rajasthan.
4.       Hitesh Suthar S/o Kheevraj Suthar, Aged About 27 Years,
         Ojhon Ki Gali, Lordiyan, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5.       Lalit Kumar S/o Ishara Ram, Aged About 37 Years,
         Opposite Custom Quarter, Baldev Nagar, Barmer,
         Rajasthan.
6.       Kishan Verma S/o Gopal Verma, Aged About 33 Years,
         Hariom Nagar, Mata Ka Than Mangra, Punjla, Jodhpur,
         Rajasthan.
7.       Deep Kamal Singh S/o Balveer Singh, Aged About 29
         Years, B-L-191, Hindpuram Colony, Mainpuri, Uttar
         Pradesh.
8.       Ashok S/o Mana Ram, Aged About 44 Years, Nagaur Bye
         Pass Chouraha, Mata Ji Ka Than, Punjala, Jodhpur,
         Rajasthan.
9.       Anju Prajapat D/o Nandram Prajapat, Aged About 41
         Years, 10/175, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur,
         Rajasthan.
10.      Bhagwati D/o Satyanarayan Parihar, Aged About 41 Years,
         Akar Bara, Basni, Tamboliya, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
11.      Hari Singh S/o Pira Ram, Aged About 44 Years,
         Bhakarwara, Basni Tamboliya, Magra Punjla, Jodhpur,
         Rajasthan.
12.      Pinky Sharma D/o Shiv Raj Sharma, Aged About 42
         Years, C/o Mukut Bihari Sharma, Plot No. 10, Ekta Nagar,
         Rajdhani Banar Road, Nandri, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
13.      Anamika Baghela D/o Mangal Singh Baghela, Aged About
         32 Years, 8/9, Sajjan Nagar, Miya Kabera Road, Purani
         Pyau, Mangra Punjla, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
14.      Devendra Singh Shekhawat S/o Bahadur Singh
         Shekhawat, Aged About 33 Years, Pahar Ganj Ii Colony,
         Power House Near Jharli House, Mandore Road, Jodhpur,
         Rajasthan.
15.      Sita D/o Tulchha Ram, Aged About 34 Years, C/o Gopal,
         Vishv Karma Nagar, Bhadasiya, Plot No. 18, Jodhpur,
         Rajasthan.
16.      Santosh Prajapat D/o Jagdish Prajapat, Aged About 28
         Years, 19, Shivnath Nagar, Setrawa House, Chopsani

                     (Downloaded on 29/11/2023 at 08:41:20 PM)
 [2023:RJ-JD:40967]                   (2 of 5)                       [CW-18364/2023]


         Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
17.      Sunil S/o Sukh Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Bola Ki Dhani,
         Khabra Kalla, Osian, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
18.      Pradeep Kumar S/o Sher Singh, Aged About 35 Years,
         Post Office Suchan Mandi, Village Suchan Kotli, Near
         Railway Station Wali Basti, District Sirsa, Haryana.
19.      Gopal Rao S/o Madan Lal Rao, Aged About 28 Years,
         Opposite Deputy Office, Gangapur, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
20.      Shalini D/o Vijay Bahadur Singh, Aged About 31 Years,
         Balrampur, Chandwak, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh.
21.      Mangi Lal S/o Ramu Ram Jat, Aged About 34 Years, 437,
         Simratha Bhopa Ki Dhani, Palli, Vpo Palli, Tehsil Lohawat,
         District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
22.      Ashok Kumar Sen S/o Hanuman Ram, Aged About 37
         Years, Pahar Ganj Iind Colony, Kishor Bagh, Mandore
         Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
23.      Narendra Puri S/o Arjun Puri, Aged About 51 Years, 76,
         Shiv Mandr Wali Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Po Mangra Punjla,
         Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
24.      Kana Ram S/o Dhagala Ram, Aged About 37 Years, 142,
         Jatiyon Ka Bas, Hariyada, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur,
         Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
         Department Of Personnel And Training Government
         Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
         Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Govt. Of
         Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.       The Director, Directorate Of Specially Abled Person,
         Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4.       The Principal, Ganchi Badhir Sr. Secondary School, Office
         At Tamboliyan Mata Ka Thana, Jodhpur.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Hans Raj Nimbar.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Surendra Choudhary.


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

28/11/2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The present writ

petition has been filed with following prayers:-

[2023:RJ-JD:40967] (3 of 5) [CW-18364/2023]

"I. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to regularize the services of the petitioners considering long service by including them under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022.

II. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents be directed to continue the petitioners on the post of Pharmacist/Computer Operator and not to replace them by another set up of contractual employees and further direct the respondents to treat the petitioners at par to the other employees who have been extended the benefit under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules,

III. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents be directed to give same benefit as given in the case of Rajesh Saini & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. SBCWP No.2150/2023 decided on 18.08.2023(Annex.5) by this Hon'ble Court."

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely

covered by a judgment of this Court rendered in S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.483/2023 (Hitesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State ofRajasthan

& Ors.) and other connected matters, decided on 19.07.2023 in

the following terms:-

"8. Having regard to the rival stands, instead of deciding petitioners' entitlement at this stage, as the same would require factual determination of various aspects, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the directions to each of the petitioners to file his/her representation before the CMHO of his/her District, where they are/were engaged.

9. It will be required of the petitioners to file a copy of the advertisement, appointment letter by the CMHO or any

[2023:RJ-JD:40967] (4 of 5) [CW-18364/2023]

other competent Government official and/or a copy of the contract.

10. The representation aforesaid be filed on or before 10.08.2023.

11. The concerned CMHO shall consider candidature of each of the petitioners separately in terms of the Rules of 2022, particularly Rule 3 of the Rules of 2022. He shall clearly indicate as to whether appointment of the petitioner was under scheme or project of the State Government and he/she was engaged through public advertisement. The CMHO shall decide the representation of the petitioners on or before 15.09.2023.

12. The concerned CMHO shall forward the list of all the candidates, who fulfill the conditions of the Rules of2022, to the Director Medical Health.

13. The Director Medical & Health shall consolidate list so sent by all the CMHOs and recommend the names to the Finance Department for doing the needful in accordance with law.

14. Once, such list is received from the Director Medical & Health, the needful in accordance with law will be done by the Finance Department within a period of four weeks.

15. It is hereby made clear that this Court has not pronounced upon the eligibility or entitlement of any of the candidates under the Rules of 2022. In case any candidate has been engaged through placement agency, the concerned CMHO shall seek guidance from the State Government (Finance Department) and decide his/her case individually.

16. If final decision of the CMHO concerned or State Government is prejudicial to the rights of the petitioner(s),he/she/they will be free to take legal remedies in accordance with law.