Rajendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:53910)
2025 Latest Caselaw 16901 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rajendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:53910) on 15 December, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:53910]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23915/2025

1.       Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Prahlad Ram, Aged About 41
         Years, R/o Village Vishnoi Ka Bash, Khetolai, District
         Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
2.       Sohan Lal S/o Shri Surata Ram, Aged About 42 Years,
         R/o Village Vishnoi Ka Bash, Khetolai, District Jaisalmer,
         Rajasthan.
3.       Manish Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Bhati Lal Sharma, Aged
         About 49 Years, R/o Ward No 13, Bhaskar Mohalla,
         Pokaran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
4.       Hajoor Bax S/o Shri Neku Khan, Aged About 36 Years,
         R/o Village Post Eka, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
5.       Mool Raj Singh Bhati S/o Shri Megraj Singh, Aged About
         32 Years, R/o Ward No 6, Ajasar, District Jaisalmer,
         Rajasthan.
6.       Jamal Deen S/o Shri Gopal Khan, Aged About 34 Years,
         R/o Village Post Sadrasar, Sankra, District Jaisalmer,
         Rajasthan.
7.       Kurban Ali S/o Shri Jamal Khan, Aged About 32 Years,
         R/o Musalamano Ki Basti, Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer,
         Rajasthan.
8.       Durg Singh Bhati S/o Shri Mahadan Singh Bhati, Aged
         About       46       Years,        R/o       Poonam          Nagar,   Habur,
         Districtjaisalmer, Rajasthan.
                                                                       ----Petitioners
                                         Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
         Medical & Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
         Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       The Mission Director (NHM), Directorate Of Medical Health
         & Family Welfare Services, Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme,
         Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3.       The Director (Public Health), Medical & Health Services,
         Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Tilak Marg,
         Jaipur.
4.       The Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical & Health Services,
         Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.


                           (Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 05:09:37 PM)
                          (Downloaded on 15/12/2025 at 08:51:13 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:53910]                        (2 of 3)                      [CW-23915/2025]


5.       The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of
         Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
6.       The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of
         Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
7.       The     Secretary,            General       Administration     Department,
         Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
8.       Chief       Medical       &     Health      Officer,    Jaisalmer,   District
         Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :       Mr. Ratana Ram
For Respondent(s)              :       Mr. Tanuj Jain for
                                       Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

15/12/2025

1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties jointly

submit that the facts in the present cases are similar to the facts

involved in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11737/24 (Rodu Lal

and Ors vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) dated 26.08.2025.

2. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 26.08.2025

passed in the case of Rodu Lal (Supra) reads as follows:

"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

(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 05:09:37 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53910] (3 of 3) [CW-23915/2025]

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 inthe 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.

43. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of."

3. In light of the order cited above, the present writ petition is

disposed of. The petitioners shall be at liberty to make a

representation before the concerned authorities within a period of

15 days. On such representation, the concerned authorities are

directed to dispose of the same in light of the decision passed in

case of Rodu Lal's case (Supra) within a period of two months

from the date of receipt of this order.

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 160s-PoonamS/-

(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 05:09:37 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)