Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Deena Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:14367) on 18 March, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:14367]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5978/2025
Deena Khan S/o Sumar Khan, aged about 33 Years, Village
Karim Kapar, Tehsil Gadra Road, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
Working as Block Coordinator at Block Sheo, District Barmer,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary,
Women and Child Development Department, Government
of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Director, Integrated Child Development Department,
Government of Rajasthan, Office at 2, Jalpath Gandhi
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Director (Nutrition Mission- Poshan Abhiyan), Integrated
Child Development Services, Government of Rajasthan,
Office at 2, Jalpath Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. M/s Lead Guard Services Pvt. Ltd., through its Director,
having its Registered Office at 312, Vaishali Tower - I,
Nursery Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Deputy Director, Women and Child Development
Department, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
6. Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child
Development Services, Sheo, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Nikhil Dungawat
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
18/03/2025
1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged
action of the respondent No.4, who has disengaged him pursuant
to the direction given by the respondent No.5.
[2025:RJ-JD:14367] (2 of 3) [CW-5978/2025]
2. Mr. Nikhil Dungawat, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner has been discharging his duties with
utmost sincerity and has served the respondents up to 20 th
February 2025, however, pursuant to the direction issued by the
respondent No.5, his placement agency has disengaged him.
3. Learned counsel argued that it was incumbent upon the
respondents, including respondent No.5, to have at least provided
him with an opportunity of hearing as his disengagement has led
to violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21
of the Constitution of India.
4. In support of his contention aforesaid, learned counsel relied
upon a co-ordinate Bench judgment dated 10.12.2014 passed by
this Court in the case of Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ petition No.1610/2011).
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Indisputably, the petitioner has been serving the
respondents through respondent No.4 - the placement agency.
There is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the
State and the petitioner has no employer-employee relationship
with the State. Consequently, his contention that respondent No.5
or other official respondents ought to have provided him with an
opportunity of hearing is misplaced.
7. The petitioner has not placed any appointment order or
contract, which he might have entered into with the respondent
No.4 - the placement agency.
8. The petitioner's engagement is entirely private in nature and
State has nothing to do with him or his engagement. If the official
respondents found the petitioner's conduct or services to be
[2025:RJ-JD:14367] (3 of 3) [CW-5978/2025]
unsatisfactory, they could very well ask the placement agency to
substitute him by another suitable person, which has been done in
the present case.
9. The petitioner's grievance (if any) is against the placement
agency, which is not an instrumentality of the State within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus not
amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court.
10. So far as the judgment in the case of Krishan Kumar (supra)
is concerned, the facts involved therein were entirely different.
The said Krishan Kumar was engaged by the respondent
Panchayat on contract basis and it was in light of clause 7(i) of the
contract, that the co-ordinate Bench held that opportunity of
hearing was a precursor. Since in the case of Krishan Kumar
(supra), there was a privity of contract between the petitioner and
the State and there a violation of condition of the contract, this
Court had held that observance of principles of natural justice is
necessary.
11. The facts in the present case, as noted above, are entirely
different. This Court neither finds any merit and substance in
petitioner's writ petition nor does it find the writ petition to be
maintainable. The petition is therefore dismissed summarily.
12. All pending applications including stay application stand
disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
303-AnilKC/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
