Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mahendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 26 February, 2024

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2024:RJ-JD:9618-DB]                   (1 of 6)                        [SAW-635/2023]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 635/2023

Bhagwan Singh Chandawat S/o Shri Chotu Singh Chandawat,
Aged About 53 Years, Melawas, Tehsil Bavri, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Ayurved
         And    Indian       Medical       Department,             Government    Of
         Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       Dr.    Sarvepalli        Radhakrishnan             Rajasthan     Ayurved
         University, Karwar, Jodhpur - Nagaur Highway Road,
         Jodhpur (Raj.) Through The Registrar.
3.       Registrar, Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved
         University,    Karwar        Jodhpur-        Nagaur       Highway   Road,
         Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Respondents
                                Connected With
                   D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 650/2023
Mahendra Singh S/o Kishore Singh, Aged About 33 Years,
Chandpole Chauka, Jnv Colony, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
         Ayurved And Indian Medical Department, Government Of
         Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       Dr.   Sarvepalli      Radhakrishanan              Rajasthan    University
         Karwar Jodhpur, Nagaur Highway Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)
         Through The Registrar.
3.       Registrar,    Dr.      Sarvepalli         Radhakrishnan         Rajasthan
         University,    Karwar        Jodhpur        Nagaur        Highway   Road,
         Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Respondents
                   D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 687/2023
Omprakash S/o Shri Bohra Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Village Basni Benda, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
                                                                      ----Appellant

                       (Downloaded on 08/03/2024 at 08:57:56 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JD:9618-DB]                    (2 of 6)                        [SAW-635/2023]


                                       Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Ayurved
         And    Indian       Medical        Department,             Government      Of
         Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       Dr.   Sarvepalli        Radhakrishanan            Rajasthan        University,
         Karwar, Jodhpur-Nagaur Highway Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)
         Through The Registrar.
3.       Dr.   Sarvepalli        Radhakrishanan            Rajasthan        University,
         Karwar,       Jodhpur-Nagaur              Highway          Road,     Jodhpur,
         Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Nikhil Jain
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Suniel Purohit



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

26/02/2024

1. These special appeals have been preferred being aggrieved

with the order dated 10.05.2023 whereby the learned Single

Judge has dismissed the writ petitions.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant

was engaged as a Class IV employee through the placement

agency in the respondent-University in year 2005 and has been

discharging the duties since then. Learned counsel further submits

that the prolonged engagement of the appellant gives right to him

to be considered for regularization, but the same has not been

allowed by the impugned judgment rendered by learned Single

Judge.

2.1 Learned counsel for the appellants has also tried to draw a

parity with one Manoj Dave, who was regularized despite having

[2024:RJ-JD:9618-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-635/2023]

been engaged on contractual basis on the post of L.D.C. by the

respondent - University.

2.2 Learned counsel for the appellants after making the short

submissions has taken this Court to the details of the impugned

order and has harped upon the judgment rendered by learned

Single Judge in the case of Jitendra Kumar Vs. Jai Narayan

Vyas University & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.8660/2011) in which, learned Single Judge had directed the

Jai Narayan Vyas University to regularize the services of similarly

situated employees and the precedent law of Jitendra Kumar

(supra) has been upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He

submits that a plethora of cases were decided on same point

belonging to the same University by the Hon'ble Courts.

2.3 In support of his submission, learned counsel for the

appellant has relied upon the following judgments rendered by

Hon'ble Supreme Court:

(i) Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors. reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1806;

(ii) Narendra Kumar Tiwari & ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. Etc., reported in AIR 2018 Supreme Court 3589;

(iii) Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in AIR 2018 Supreme Court 233;

(iv) State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors. reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2587;

(v) Amarkant Raj Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3080.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention of

this Court towards the submissions made by the learned counsel

for the appellants regarding the judgment of Jitendra Kumar

(supra) and has directly taken this Court to the para 2 of the

[2024:RJ-JD:9618-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-635/2023]

judgment of Jitendra Kumar (supra), in which, the fact has been

noted by learned Single Judge that the Jai Narain Vyas University

has regularized 10 class IV employees in regular pay-scale by

appointing them class IV employees. Thus, as per learned counsel,

the persons who have now been regularized are on the basis of

operation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India whereby

repeated directions in slightly different circumstances, but a

common proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India will

operate as the University itself had allowed to regularize 10

similarly situated employees. He further submits that the

judgment of Jitendra Kumar (supra) was upheld upto the Hon'ble

Apex Court and the number of judgments ensued out of the

litigation but the common pedestal was Jitendra Kumar (supra)

and Article 14 of the Constitution of India having been operated by

the Courts.

3.1 Learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn the

attention of this Court to the case of the present University, which

is Ashish Dave vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (D.B. Special

Appeal Writ No.5/2022), decided on 20.07.2023, in which, this

Court has upheld the impugned order, akin to the impugned order

made in the present matter; the order reads as follows:-

"1. Heard.

2. The defect No.4 pointed out by the office is ignored. Other defects have already been cured.

3. This Special Appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 5.3.2021, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed SBCWP No.7612/2018 and has also dismissed SB Writ Contempt No.1185/2018.

[2024:RJ-JD:9618-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-635/2023]

4. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court alleging therein that he was employed by the respondent-university on contractual basis on the post of computer operator/programmer, however, the respondent-university has terminated his services for employing another contractual employee.

5. The writ petition was contested by the respondent- university while claiming that it has never employed the petitioner on contractual basis. It is also asserted that the petitioner was engaged by a contractor i.e. Royal Guards Security Services and as contractor has disengaged the petitioner, the respondent- university did not allow him to continue on the post of computer operator/programmer.

6. The petitioner has contested the claim of the respondent- university that he was not engaged by it on contract basis, but was engaged by a contractor i.e. Royal Guards Security Services.

7. The learned Single Judge, after hearing counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinizing the documents annexed by the petitioner along with the writ petition, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to produce any document in support of his claim that the respondent-university has engaged him on contract basis at any point of time. The learned Single Judge is of the opinion that careful scrutiny of the documents filed by the petitioner leads to a conclusion that the petitioner was engaged by the Royal Guards Security Services and monthly salary was also paid to him by the said Security Services.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and after carefully scrutinizing the documents annexed by the appellant along with the special appeal, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality in reaching to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to establish

[2024:RJ-JD:9618-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-635/2023]

employee-employer relationship between him and the respondent-university.