[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kalee Charan Meena vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:52970) on 6 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:52970]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23699/2025
1. Kalee Charan Meena D/o Shri Ganesh Lal Meena, Aged
About 38 Years, R/o Gopalpura Bamori, Post Dhamotar,
Tehsil And District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
2. Ram Singh D/o Shri Nagendra Singh Meena, Aged About
50 Years, R/o Chhota Majesariya Post Sidhpura, Tehsil
And District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
3. Kailash Chandra Meena S/o Shri Bagdi Ram Meena, Aged
About 40 Years, R/o Talab Fala, Post Dhariya Khedi Tehsil
Suhagpura, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
4. Shanta Meena W/o Shri Pratap Singh Maida, Aged About
40 Years, R/o Movai Pada, Ghantali, Tehsil Peepalkhunt
District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
5. Dilip Kumar Meena S/o Shri Rakma Meena, Aged About
35 Years, R/o Nai Aabadi, Salamgarh, Tehsil Dalot,
District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
6. Mangilal Meena S/o ShriKaru Lal Meena, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Lalgarh, Tehsil Aarnod, District Pratapgarh,
Rajasthan.
7. Manilal Damor S/o Shri Dev Ji Damor, Aged About 51
Years, R/o Aankliya Fala, Post Gandhva Pal Tehsil
Simalwada, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
8. Devanand Meena W/o Shri Bhagat Meena, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Gopalpura, Post Sidhpura, Tehsil And District
Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Personnel (A-Ii) Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Tribal Area Development (Tad), Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Commissioner, Tribal Area Development (Tad),
Department, Udaipur.
4. Director, Swach Pari Yojana, Udaipur.
5. Project Officer, Swach Pari Yojana, Pratapgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Chaudhary
Mr. Ram Dev Potalia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
06/12/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the
action of the respondent authorities for not passing any order on
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:10:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52970] (2 of 3) [CW-23699/2025]
the representation filed by the petitioners whereunder they have
requested to consider their case for covering the Contractual
Hiring To Civil Posts Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Rules of 2022').
2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were
recruited by direct contract through the outsourcing agency and
their case is also covered by the order dated 26.08.2025 passed
by Division 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.
3. The operative portion of the order dated 26.08.2025 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 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.
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:10:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52970] (3 of 3) [CW-23699/2025]
(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
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. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is
disposed of in the same terms as in the case of Rodu Lal & Ors.
(supra) and the petitioners are at liberty to file a representation, if
any such representation is filed, the same shall be considered in
light of the order passed in the case of Rodu Lal & Ors. (supra).
5. The said exercise shall be done within a period of three
months from the date of representation filed by the petitioners.
6. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
89-BhumikaP/-
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:10:32 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
