Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jai Singh Verma vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 26 November, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:51130-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21462/2025
1. Jai Singh Verma S/o Shri Gopi Singh, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Shitala Mata Mandir Kepass, Gopalpura,
Bhilwara Raj..
2. Suresh Chandra Meghwanshi S/o Shri Bhola Ram
Meghwanshi, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Atpresent
Working As Computer Operator Inthe Panchayat Samiti
Badnor, District Beawar Raj..
3. Radheshyam Bairwa, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Dateela,
Po Aklera,district Jhalawar Raj.
4. Ravi Kumar Mewara S/o Shri Dhanna Lal, Aged About 32
Years, R/o 38, Nichala Mohalla,sareri, District Jhalawar
Raj..
5. Deepak Mewada S/o Shri Ramesh Chand, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Cheepa Mohalla, Manoharthana, Jhalawar Raj..
6. Ravi Mewara S/o Shri Paramanand Kahaar, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Chipa Mohalla, Manohar Thana,
District Jhalawarraj..
7. Jitendra Singh Sisodiya S/o Shri Prahlad Singh, Aged
About 38 Years, R/o Ravla Mohalla, Naval Pura, Sunel,
Jhalawarraj..
8. Darab Singh S/o Shri Vijay Singh, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o Village Chokipura, Postbaben, Tehsil Kumhar District
Deeg Raj..
9. Heera Lal Balai S/o Shri Ram Chandra Balai, Aged About
29 Years, R/o At Present Workingas Computer Operator In
The Panchayatsamiti Badnor, District Beawar Raj..
10. Rugnath Alias Raghuveer Singh S/o Shri Jhabar Singh,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o Bida,jaisalmer Raj..
11. Ashok Kumar Vyas S/o Shri Prem Chand Vyas Aged, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o At Presentworking As Computer
Operator In Thepanchayat Samiti Badnor, District
Beawarraj..
12. Mukesh Kumar Harokiya S/o Shri Balchand, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Bagri Mohalla, Ram Nagar,jhalawar Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 03:44:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/11/2025 at 11:07:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51130-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-21462/2025]
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 Commissioner (Egs), Rural Developmentand
Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Teh Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishadbhilwara, District
Bhilwara.
5. The Additional Chief Executive Officer, Cum Additional
District Project Coordinator,zila Parishad Beawar, District
Beawa
6. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishadjhalawar, District
Jhalawar.
7. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bharatpur,
District Bharatpur.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21457/2025
1. Dhanraj Gurjar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Gali No. 11,
Idea Tower Ke Pass, Jaswant Garh, District Nagaur (Raj.).
2. Chintu S/o Shri Ashok Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Thakur Ji Ki Gali, Sayla, District Jalore (Raj.).
3. Mukesh Inaniya S/o Shri Jassa Ram, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Village Bayad, Post Gagrana, Tehsil Merta City,
Nagaur (Raj.).
4. Nemi Chand Prajapati S/o Shri Shyam Lal Prajapati, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o Main Road Jhujhanda, District Pali
(Raj.).
5. Sikander Singh S/o Shri Mahender Singh, Aged About 37
Years, R/o 2 Jsl, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
6. Banwari Lal Swam S/o Shri Shiv Chand Swami, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Ward No.02, Sai Mandir Ke Pass,
Jaswant Garh, District Nagaur (Raj.).
7. Ashok S/o Snri Iswar Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Ward No. 11, Valamiki Mohalla, Sagara Barani,
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 03:44:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/11/2025 at 11:07:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51130-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-21462/2025]
8. Venu Gopal Verma S/o Shri Krishan Verma, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Power Gred Ke Samne, Raigro Ka Mohalla,
Jamwa, Ramgarh, Jaipur.
----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 Commissoner (Egs), Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Mission Director, Swatch Bharat Mission (Sbm),
Jaipur.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagaur, District
Nagaur.
6. The Additional Chief Executive Officer, Phalodi, District
Phalodi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Adv. & AAG
assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot.
Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG, with
Mr. Pawan Bharti.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
ORDER
26/11/2025
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
Hon'ble Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11737/2024 titled
(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 03:44:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51130-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-21462/2025]
as Rodu Lal & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. and
connected batch of petitions.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents are agreeable to the
proposition and submit that the representation shall be decided in
light of the decision rendered in Rodu Lal's case (supra).
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 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 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.
(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 03:44:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51130-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-21462/2025]
(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. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are also disposed of in
the light of decision rendered vide order dated 26.08.2025 passed
in Rodu Lal's case (supra) on the same terms.
5. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
11-12 Zeeshan
(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 03:44:49 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
