Rajasthan High Court
Mohammad Nadeem S/O Mohammad Saddik vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:10421) on 29 February, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:10421] (1 of 3) [CW-1421/2024]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1421/2024
Mohammad Nadeem S/o Mohammad Saddik, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Chobdari Ki Masjid Ke Pas, Naya Shahar, Kishangarh,
Ajmer-305802
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Trough The Secretary, Department Of
Local Bodies, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Muncipal Corporation, Kishangarh,
Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
29/02/2024
1. By way of the instant petition, a challenge is made to the
order impugned dated 17.01.2024, marked as Annexure-1,
whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused through
the record of the petition.
3. Upon a considered perusal of the record, the following
germane stipulations have come to light, namely:-
3.1 That the petitioner was appointed as a contractual employee.
3.2 That the petitioner has categorically failed to place on record
any appointment letter issued in favour of the petitioner by the
[2024:RJ-JP:10421] (2 of 3) [CW-1421/2024]
respondents, exhibiting the terms and conditions of their
engagement etc.
3.3 That the petitioner is merely a third-party and alien to the
contract which was primarily entered into between the
respondents and the concerned placement agency/contractor.
3.4 That privity of contract subsisted only between the
respondents and the concerned placement agency/contractor.
4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in K.K. Suresh and Anr. vs. Food
Corporation of India reported in AIR 2018 SC 3905, has
categorically held that contractual engagement does not create a
vested right of employment in favour of the workers, engaged
through a placement agency. The relevant extract of the said
judgment is reproduced herein-under:-
"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 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."
5. In furtherance of the settled position of the law regarding the
negative scope of regularization of contractual employees, the
Hon'ble Apex Court as recently as on 12.09.2023 in Ganesh
[2024:RJ-JP:10421] (3 of 3) [CW-1421/2024]
Digamber Jhambhrundkar and Ors. vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors.: Special Leave to Appeal No.
2543/2023, has held that the fact of having rendered their
services for a long time by contractual employees, shall not create
a vested right of employment in their favour. The relevant extract
of the said judgment is reproduced herein-under:-
"The issue with which we are concerned in this
petition is as to whether by working for a long period
of time on contractual basis, the petitioners have
acquired any vested legal right to be appointed in the
respective posts on regular basis.
We appreciate the argument of the petitioners that
they have given best part of their life for the said
college but so far as law is concerned, we do not find
their continuous working has created any legal right
in their favour to be absorbed. In the event there was
any scheme for such regularization, they could have
availed of such scheme but in this case, there seems
to be none. We are also apprised that some of the
petitioners have applied for appointment through the
current recruitment process. The High Court has
rejected their claim mainly on the ground that they
have no right to seek regularization of their service.
We do not think any different view can be taken."
6. Accordingly, in view of the above, the instant petition is
dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Pooja /20
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
