Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suraj Rawat vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:47390) on 4 November, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:47390]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21334/2025
Suraj Rawat S/o Shri Tola, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Majara
Bijaliya, Nawagaon, District Banswara.
----Petitioner
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 Pariyojana Udaipur.
5. Project Officer, Swach Pariyojana, Banswara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Dev Potalia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
04/11/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the
action of the respondent authorities for not passing any order on
the representation filed by the petitioner whereunder he has
requested to consider his case for covering the Contractual Hiring
To Civil Posts Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of
2022').
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was recruited
by direct contract through the outsourcing agency and his 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.
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 04:52:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47390] (2 of 3) [CW-21334/2025]
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.
(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
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 04:52:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47390] (3 of 3) [CW-21334/2025]
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 petitioner is 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 petitioner.
6. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
197-BhumikaP/-
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 04:52:58 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
