The State Of Rajasthan vs Naveen Kishore Kakerda ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2149 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2149 Raj
Judgement Date : 10 February, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

The State Of Rajasthan vs Naveen Kishore Kakerda ... on 10 February, 2026

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:7345-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                          JODHPUR
              D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 165/2026

1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary-
         Cum-Director, Directorate Of Child Rights, 22/198, Kaveri
         Path, Sector-2, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
2.       The Chief Executive Officer, Rajasthan State Child
         Protection Society, 22/198, Kaveri Path, Sector-2,
         Mansarovar, Jaipur.
3.       The Assistant Director, District Child Protection Unit,
         Chittorgarh.
4.       The Assistant Director, District Child Protection Unit,
         Jalore.
5.       The Assistant Director, District Child Protection Unit, Pali.
                                                        ----Appellants
                                Versus
1.       Naveen Kishore Kakerda S/o Shro Sohan Lal, Aged About
         34 Years, R/o-3-C, Gandhi Nagar, Sector-5, Chittorgarh.
2.       Pooja Teli D/o Shri Bheru Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o-
         3-C, Gandhi Nagar, Sector-5 Chittorgarh.
3.       Mahendra Chouhan S/o Shri Himmta Ram, Aged About 36
         Years, R/o-10-B, Ramdev Colony, Jalore.
4.       Dinesh Vaishnav S/o Shri Babudas Vaishnav, Aged About
         37 Years, R/o-1-D-61, Old Housing Board, Pali.
5.       Union Of India, Through The Joint Secretary, Ministry Of
         Women Child Development, Government Of India, Shastri
         Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
                                                     ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)            :     Dr. Praveen Khandelwal, AAG with
                                  Ms. Yashvi Khandelwal
For Respondent(s)           :


     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH Order

10/02/2026

1. The matter comes up on an application (IA No.01/25) filed

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of

delay in filing the present appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is

allowed. Accordingly, the delay in filing the present appeal is

hereby condoned.

(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 12:30:19 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7345-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-165/2026]

3. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the

present controversy is covered by the judgment order dated

24.11.2025 passed by this Court in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ

No.1002/2025 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Gautam Chand) and

other connected matter. The operative portion of the judgment

dated 24.11.2025, reads as under:-

"6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, this Hon'ble Court finds that the core issue in controversy pertains to the engagement and selection process of Protection Officers and Outreach Workers under the Mission Vatsalya framework. Both the existence of these posts as scheme- based functional positions and the selection mechanism prescribed for them stand expressly provided in the Mission Vatsalya Guidelines contained in Annexure-III. The contention of the State that engagement of such personnel may be effected through outsourcing under the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012, by relying upon the wide ambit of the definition of service under Section 2(20), cannot be accepted in the present factual backdrop.

7. This Court is of the considered view that once the State has adopted and undertaken to implement Mission Vatsalya, it is bound to adhere to the policy in its entirety, including the prescribed mode of selection through a duly constituted Selection Committee headed by the District Magistrate. The roles and responsibilities of Protection Officers and Outreach Workers, as reflected in the scheme, are sensitive and central to the objectives of child protection, rehabilitation, and welfare, and therefore any deviation from the structured selection mechanism would run contrary to the intent and integrity of the policy itself.

8. However, this Court does not deem it appropriate, in the facts of the present case, to direct the State to create sanctioned or encadred posts or to regularize such positions, as the Mission Vatsalya scheme does not

(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 12:30:19 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7345-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-165/2026]

envisage permanent cadre creation, and judicial directions cannot be issued mandating creation of posts or restructuring of administrative policy. To that extent, the direction issued by the Hon'ble Single Judge for creation of sanctioned posts cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.

9. Nevertheless, this Court is firmly of the opinion that engagement of Protection Officers and Outreach Workers through placement agencies under the RTPP Act, 2012, is impermissible, as the same would defeat the structured recruitment mechanism contemplated in the Mission Vatsalya Guidelines. The persons already engaged through the selection process envisaged under the scheme shall continue to discharge their duties until the currency of the Mission Vatsalya scheme or until fresh recruitment is undertaken strictly in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure, subject to disqualification or disciplinary contingencies.