[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jetmal Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 8 December, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:53129-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17515/2025
1. Jetmal Singh S/o Shri Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Keshar Singh Ka Tala, Myajlar, Jaisalmer (Raj.).
2. Ravi Panwar S/o Shri Madan Lal Panwar, Aged About 28
Years, Darji Pada, Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
3. Kishan Singh S/o Shri Ridmal Singh, Aged About 28
Years, Salkha, Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
4. Shiv Lal S/o Shri Kana Ram, Aged About 35 Years, Ward
No. 6, Rajput Ka Bas, Satyaya, Jaisalmer, District
Jaisalmer (Raj.).
5. Kheta Ram Devpal S/o Shri Arjun Ram, Aged About 35
Years, Ward No. 15, Chhapar Para, Jaisalmer, District
Jaisalmer (Raj.)
6. Lokesh Chouhan S/o Shri Satyanarayan Singh, Aged
About 29 Years, Amar Sagar, Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer
(Raj.).
7. Shiv Lal S/o Shri Thirpal Ram, Aged About 29 Years,
Village Chacha, Tehsil Pokaran, Jaisalmer (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan
3. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Commissioner (Egs), Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. The District Collector Cum District Programme
Coordinator, Egs, Jaisalmer.
6. The Chief Executive Officer Cum- Additional District
Programme Coordinator, Egs, Zila Parishad, Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 09/12/2025 at 02:37:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/12/2025 at 09:00:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53129-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-17515/2025]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. I. R. Choudhary, AAG with
Mr. Pawan Bharti
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
08/12/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners may be permitted to file representation in light of the
order dated 26.08.2025 passed by Co-Ordinate Bench of this
Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11737/2024 titled as Rodu Lal
& Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. and connected batch of
petitions.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents is agreeable to the
proposition and submits that representation shall be decided in
light of the Rodu Lal & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
3. The operative portion of the order dated 26.08.2025 (supra)
reads as follows:
"40. This Court is further of the firm opinion
that if the respondents continue with the
services of the petitioners, without covering
them under the Rules of 2022 would be against
the principles as enumerated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in a catena of judgments wherein
the Court has opined that the practice of
appointment of contractual employees without
any rules would lead to a situation of
exploitation by the employer. With this intent
only, the Rules of 2022 have been framed and
therefore, the benefit of the said rules cannot
be denied to the petitioners and similarly
(Uploaded on 09/12/2025 at 02:37:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53129-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-17515/2025]
situated persons merely on the count of having
been appointed through placement agency.
41. In light of the aforesaid facts & findings and
the judgments, this Court is of the opinion that
Rule 3 of the Rules of 2022 has to be read
harmoniously, whereby, the petitioners and
similarly situated persons, who have been
appointed through placement agency after
issuance of public advertisement are to be
covered under the ambit of Rule 3 of the Rules
of 2022. Since, the above rule has been read
harmoniously in favour of the petitioners,
therefore, there is no requirement to decide
question No. (b), which was framed under para
13. The harmonious reading of the Rule itself
clarifies that, there ought to be no
discrimination between the contractual
employees appointed through placement
agency as well as the contractual employees
appointed directly.
42. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions
are allowed in the following terms:
(i) The respondents shall consider the individual
case of each contractual employee, appointed
prior to enforcement of the Rules of 2022
strictly in accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules of
2022,meaning thereby, that if an employee has
been appointed on a post created by the
Administrative Department with the
concurrence of the Finance Department and the
appointment has been through issuance of a
public advertisement further without there
being any differentiation whether the public
(Uploaded on 09/12/2025 at 02:37:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53129-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-17515/2025]
advertisement has been issued by the State
Government or by the placement agency.
(ii) If the case of the individual is in
conformation with the Rule 3 of the Rules of
2022, as interpreted above, then the benefit of
the Rules of 2022 shall be extended to such
petitioners.
4. Thus, the petition is disposed of in same terms and with
same liberty of filing the representation.
5. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
18-JatinS/Yagya/-
(Uploaded on 09/12/2025 at 02:37:45 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
