Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hitendra Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 10 November, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:48182]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 549/2024
1.       Hitendra Kumar Sharma S/o Mahendra Kumar Sharma,
         Aged About 37 Years, R/o VPO Andiyari, Tehsil Rupwas,
         District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
2.       Ashwani Kumar S/o Prahlad Rai Gomlada, Aged About 41
         Years, R/o 34/251, Sector 3 Pratap Nagar Sanganer,
         District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3.       Nilam D/o Kalyan Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Plot
         No. 144, Shiv Shakti Vihar Near Benar Railway Station
         Jhotwara, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4.       Nitin Pareek S/o Mahesh Kumar Pareek, Aged About 38
         Years, R/o 19, Krishana Vihar - A New Sanganer Road
         Mansarovar Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5.       Laxmi Narayan S/o Late Shri Chandra Mohan, Aged About
         57 Years, R/o 127, Pratibha Marg, Vivek Vihar, N.S. Road,
         Sodala, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
6.       Ram Kishore Choudhary S/o Yad Ram Choudahry, Aged
         About 24 Years, R/o 38 Manglam Park Scheme Kishorpura
         Post Bindayaka, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
7.       Sonu Kumri W/o Shiv Raj Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/
         o Plot No. 23 K. No. 62/1, Banar Road, Gateway Hotel,
         Balaji Nagar, Nandri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
8.       Meenakshi Kanwar W/o Rahul Singh, Aged About 33
         Years, R/o V.P.O. Rajpur (Patan), Tehsil Neem Ka Thana,
         District Sikar, Rajasthan.
9.       Saroj Kanwar D/o Man Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
         SD-223, Shanti Nagar, ESI Hospital Hatwara Road, Ajmer
         Road, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
10.      Bhuvnesh Goyal S/o R.S. Goyal, Aged About 49 Years, R/
         o Shastri Nagar, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
11.      Rakesh Chhimpa S/o Hamuman Prasad Chhimpoa, Aged
         About 33 Years, R/o Behind Jain College Maju Dhram
         Kante Ke Pass, Vishwakarma Colony, Bikaner, District
         Bikaner, Rajasthan.
12.      Sharad Kiradoo S/o Ghevar Chand Kiradoo, Aged About
         34 Years, R/o Lali Bai Bagechi, Outside Nathusar Road,
         Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
13.      Ankit Gehlot S/o Sanwar Lal Gehlot, Aged About 19 Years,
         R/o Hanuman Mandir Ke Piche Kismidesar, Bhinasar,
         District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
14.      Rama Shankar Kalla S/o Vijay Shankar Kalla, Aged About
         35 Years, R/o Kalla Gali, Chothani Ojha Chowk, Bikaner,
         District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
15.      Seema Sharma W/o Anil Kumar Sharma, Aged About 37
         Years, R/o Ramdev Ji Mandir Ke Pass, Bada Guwad,
         Deshnoke, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
16.      Rakesh Kumar Choudhary S/o Badri Lal Choudhary, Aged

                          (Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:15:31 PM)
                         (Downloaded on 10/11/2025 at 08:57:50 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:48182]                   (2 of 5)                         [CW-549/2024]


         About 34 Years, R/o Khelaniya, Tehsil Uniyara, District
         Tonk, Rajasthan.
17.      Santosh Kumar Sharma S/o Poonam Chand Sharma,
         Aged About 45 Years, R/o Rathi Printing Press Ki Piche
         Vali Gali, Vaidh Magharam Colony, Bikaner, District
         Bikaner, Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
         Department Of Local Self Government, Government Of
         Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2.       The Director And Joint Secretary, Directorate Of Local
         Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3.       The  Municipal    Council,   Jhalawar      Through    Its
         Commissioner, Municipal Council, Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
4.       The Municipal Council, Alwar Through Its Commissioner,
         Municipal Council Alwar, Rajasthan.
5.       The Municipal Council, Jalore Through Its Commissioner,
         Municipal Council, Jalore, Rajasthan.
6.       The Municipal Council, Tonk Through Its Commissioner,
         Municipal Council, Tonk, Rajasthan.
7.       The Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Greater Through Its
         Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Greater,
         Rajasthan.
8.       The Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur (South) Through Its
         Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
9.       The Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur (North) Through Its
         Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
10.      The Municipal Corporation, Bikaner Through Its
         Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
11.      The Municipal    Council,   Chittorgarh    Through    Its
         Commissioner, Municipal Council, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
12.      The Nagar Palika, Through Its Executive Officer, Nokha,
         District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
13.      The Nagar Palika, Through Its Executive                          Officer,
         Deshnoke, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
14.      The Nagar Palika, Through Its Executive Officer, Uniyara,
         District Tonk, Rajasthan.
15.      Shakti Co-Operative Society Limited, Through Its
         Proprietor/director, Having Its Registered Office At Shakti
         House, A-10, Satya Nagar, Shivpuri, Jhotwara, Jaipur
         (Raj.).
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla



                      (Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:15:31 PM)
                     (Downloaded on 10/11/2025 at 08:57:50 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:48182]                      (3 of 5)                        [CW-549/2024]


For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Suniel Purohit (Resp. No. 8 & 9)


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order 10/11/2025

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 petitioners whereunder they have

requested to consider their case for covering the Contractual

Hiring To Civil Posts Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Rules of 2022').

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

recruited by direct contract through the outsourcing agency and

their case is also covered by the order dated 26.08.2025 passed

by Hon'ble 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.

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.

(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:15:31 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48182] (4 of 5) [CW-549/2024]

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."

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), giving liberty to the petitioners to file individual

representation. If any such representation is filed, the respondent

No. 2 - Director And Joint Secretary, Directorate Of Local Bodies,

(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:15:31 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48182] (5 of 5) [CW-549/2024]

Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan shall consider the same in terms of

the principles laid down 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 petitioners.

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