Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramesh Bawal vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 7 November, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:47885-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18801/2025
1. Ramesh Bawal S/o Peera Ram Meghwal, Aged About 41
Years, R/o 379, Vpo Bera Dimadi, Post Isali, Tehsil Marwar
Junction, District Pali (Raj.). (Date Of Appointment
01.06.2013).
2. Dhagla Ram S/o Lumba Ram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o
Gram Panchayat Basni Jojawar, Panchayat Samiti Marwar
Junction, District Pali (Raj.). (Date Of Appointment
05.12.2019)
3. Jagdish Nayak S/o Amra Ram Nayak, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Gram Panchayat Bornadi, Panchayat Samiti
Marwar Junction, District Pali (Raj.). (Date Of
Appointment 01.06.2013)
4. Amar Bharti S/o Moola Bharti, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
Gram Panchayat Chirpatiya, Panchayat Samiti Marwar
Junction, District Pali (Raj.). (Date Of Appointment
01.06.2013)
5. Mohan Singh S/o Surat Singh, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
Poonamo Ka Guda, Siriyari, Post Ranawas, Tehsil Marwar
Junction, District Pali (Date Of Appointment 01.09.2015).
6. Surya Prakash S/o Ghanshyam Joshi, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Bichala Bass, Kawaliya Kalan, Tehsil Jaitaran,
District Pali (Date Of Appointment- 01.04.2015).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Commissioner (Egs), Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. The District Collector, Pali.
6. Chief Exeucutive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali, Rajasthan.
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 06:19:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 08:49:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47885-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-18801/2025]
7. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Marwar Junction,
District Pali, Rajasthan.
8. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Jaitaran, District
Pali, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bharti
Mr. Harshwardhan Singh
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Order
07/11/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners may be permitted to file representation in light of the
order dated 26.08.2025 passed by Co-Ordinate 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.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents is agreeable to the
proposition and submits that representation shall be decided in
light of the Rodu Lal & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
3. The operative portion of the order dated 26.08.2025 (supra)
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
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 06:19:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47885-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-18801/2025]
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
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 06:19:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47885-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-18801/2025]
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. Thus, the petition is disposed of in same terms and with
same liberty of filing the representation.
5. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
31-Suraj/-
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 06:19:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
