Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Naveen Kishore Kakerda vs Union Of India (2025:Rj-Jd:3068) on 16 January, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:3068]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3276/2024
Gautam Chand S/o Teekam Chand, Aged About 33 Years, D-392,
Shankar Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Child Rights, Government Of Rajasthan, 20/198,
Kaveri Path, Sector-2, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector And Chairman, District Child
Protection Unit, Pali.
3. The Assistant Director, Department Of Child Rights And
District Child Protection Unit, Pali.
----Respondents
Connected With
(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3291/2024
1. Naveen Kishore Kakerda S/o Shri Sohan Lal, Aged About
33 Years, R/o- 3-C, Gandhi Nagar, Sector-5, Chittorgarh.
2. Pooja Teli D/o Shri Bheru Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o-
3-C, Gandhi Nagar, Sector-5, Chittorgarh.
3. Mahendra Chouhan S/o Shri Himmta Ram, Aged About 36
Years, R/o-10-B, Ramdev Colony, Jalore.
4. Dinesh Vaishnav S/o Shri Babudas Vaishnav, Aged About
37 Years, R/o- 1-D-61, Old Housing Board, Pali.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Joint Secretary, Ministry Of
Women And Child Development, Government Of India,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary-
Cum-Director, Directorate Of Child Rights, 22/198, Kaveri
Path, Sector-2, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Rajasthan State Child
Protection Society, 22/198, Kaveri Path, Sector-2,
Mansarovar, Jaipur.
4. The Assistant Director, District Child Protection Unit,
Jodhpur.
[2025:RJ-JD:3068] (2 of 4) [CW-3276/2024]
5. The Assistant Director, District Child Protection Unit,
Jalore.
6. The Assistant Director, District Child Protection Unit, Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Saluja
Mr. Hanuman Singh
Ms. Mamta Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Piyush Bhandari
Mr. S.D. Chavariya for
Mr. Praveen Khandelwal, AAG
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
16/01/2025
1. Mr. Saluja, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the issue involved in the present petitions is squarely covered by
the judgment of this Court dated 13.01.2025 passed in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 2192/2024 (Shobha Soni & Ors. vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors.). While informing that all the petitioners
involved in both the writ petitions are Protection Officer/Outreach
Worker, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that same
order be passed in their case as well.
2. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent - State on
the other hand submitted that on principles the case may be
similar to the case of Shobha Soni (supra), however, there is
distinctive feature inasmuch as, in the case of Shobha Soni
(supra), the petitioners were working with the respondent - State
pursuant to the interim order, whereas, no interim order has been
passed in petitioners' favour and they were disengaged way back
on 28.02.2023.
[2025:RJ-JD:3068] (3 of 4) [CW-3276/2024]
3. Learned counsel for the respondents thus, submitted that
since a period of two years has passed, the direction of continuing
petitioners' engagement, until the direction given in the case of
Shobha Soni (supra) are complied with, would not be appropriate
in the facts of the case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this juncture invited
Court's attention towards the interim order dated 19.09.2024
passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in petitioners' cases
and submitted that since the process of finalization or filling up
posts pursuant to Advertisement dated 05.02.2024 had been
stayed, no posts have yet been filled-in.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering
the factual backdrop of the case, more particularly the fact that
pursuant to Advertisement dated 05.02.2024, nobody has been
engaged; this Court is of the view that the petitioners are also
entitled for the same directions as have been given in the case of
Shobha Soni (supra). Because, on principles, the case of the
present petitioners is akin to the case of Shobha Soni (supra).
6. The impugned order dated 05.02.2024 is, therefore,
quashed.
7. The respondent-State is directed to take up requisite
exercise of sanctioning requisite number of posts of Protection
Officers and Outreach Workers and other incidental posts and
frame Rules in this regard.
8. Until such exercise is undertaken and regular recruitment
takes place, the State shall be free to engage these persons on
contract basis, obviously in accordance with law, more particularly
following what has been noted in clause (i) of Para (B) of the
[2025:RJ-JD:3068] (4 of 4) [CW-3276/2024]
District Annexure-III of the Mission Vatsalya Guidelines, of course
after following due procedure including issuing of a public notice.
9. Till such exercise is undertaken and new persons are
engaged through the process to be adopted, the petitioners shall
be engaged and continued, except if they incur some
disqualification or they are guilty of some misconduct.
10. The writ petitions so also the stay applications stand
disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
106-107-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
