Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Mohan Lal Roat vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:53914)
2025 Latest Caselaw 16903 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 16903 Raj
Judgement Date : 15 December, 2025

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mohan Lal Roat vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:53914) on 15 December, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:53914]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23921/2025

1.       Mohan Lal Roat W/o Shri Hajaji Roat, Aged About 49
         Years, R/o Rodafala, Post Gandhva, Tehsil, Jothari District
         Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
2.       Dinesh Chandra Bhagora S/o Shri Badami Lal Bhagora,
         Aged About 43 Years, R/o Sanchiya, District Dungarpur,
         Rajasthan.
3.       Mukesh Kumar Damor S/o Shri Keshav Lal Damor, Aged
         About       37    Years,       R/o     Charwada,             Panchayat   Samiti
         Jhouthari District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
4.       Dinesh Kumar Damor S/o Shri Keshav Lal Ji Damor, Aged
         About       42    Years,       R/o     Charwada,             Panchayat   Samiti
         Jhouthari District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
5.       Kanta D/o Shri Lalu Nanoma W/o Shri Jagdish, Aged
         About 44 Years, R/o Padlamoru, District Dungarpur,
         Rajasthan.
6.       Tarachand Katara S/o Shri Vaksi Katara, Aged About 40
         Years,      R/o      Padli      Basiya       Tehsil      Jhouthari,      District
         Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
7.       Manilal Dodiyar S/o Shri Veerjidodiyar, Aged About 51
         Years, R/o Harva Pachour, Post Biliyabadgama Tehsil
         Oabari,district Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
8.       Devramaahari S/o Shri Veerjidodiyar, Aged About 51
         Years,      R/o      Dugra,        Post      Chakhadabadgama              Tehsil
         Jhouthari, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
9.       Subhash Barnda S/o Shri Nana Lal, Aged About 43 Years,
         R/o Dhamod, Tehsil Bhichiweada, District Dungarpur,
         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.


                           (Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 04:53:40 PM)
                          (Downloaded on 15/12/2025 at 07:03:55 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:53914]                      (2 of 4)                       [CW-23921/2025]


 4.         Director, Swaachh Pariyojana, Udaipur.
 5.         Project Officer, Swaachh Pariyojana, Dungarpur.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :    Mr. Ramdev Potalia.
For Respondent(s)             :



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

15/12/2025

1. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the

matter has been heard for final disposal at the admission stage

itself.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners were

appointed as Block Coordinator-cum-Assistant Coordinator

through the outsourcing agency by way of public advertisement.

The petitioners' request for consideration to govern their services

under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022

(hereinafter referred as 'Rules of 2022') was not considered on

the ground that the petitioners' services were not hired under any

direct contract with the respondents and they are working through

an outsourcing agency.

3. This controversy has already been settled by the Division

Bench of this Court in the case of Rodu Lal & Ors. Vs. The

State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

11737/2024 and connected batch of petitions, decided on

26.08.2025.

4. The operative portion of the order dated 26.08.2025 reads as

follows:-

(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 04:53:40 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53914] (3 of 4) [CW-23921/2025]

"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.

(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."

5. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is also

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

(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 04:53:40 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53914] (4 of 4) [CW-23921/2025]

any such representation is filed, the same shall be considered in

light of the order passed in the case of Rodu Lal & Ors. (supra).

6. The said exercise shall be done within a period of three

months from the date of representation filed by the petitioners.

7. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 162-PKS/-

(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 04:53:40 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter