Friday, 08, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Bulaki Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2982 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2982 Raj
Judgement Date : 23 February, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Bulaki Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 23 February, 2026

Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:9503]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3683/2026

1.       Bulaki Ram S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
         415, Bahadur Singh Colony, Ward No. 11, Sardar Shar,
         Churu, District Churu.
2.       Subhash Giri S/o Kashi Giri, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
         Ganv-Dhani         Doodgir,       Churu,       Dhani        Pachera,    District
         Churu, Rajasthan-331403.
3.       Mumtaz Leelgar S/o Shardul Mohammad, Aged About 43
         Years, R/o Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank K Pass, Moti
         Chawk Ward No. 32, Sardar Sehar, Churu, District Churu.
4.       Kishan Dan Charan S/o Amardan Charan, Aged About 42
         Years, R/o Silampuria Kua K Pass, Ward No. 5, Sardar
         Sehar, Churu, District Churu.
5.       Sandeep Sharma S/o Hari Ram Sharma, Aged About 29
         Years, R/o Ghadsisar, P.o. Karansar, Churu, District Churu.
6.       Samadar Singh S/o Mahaveer Singh, Aged About 28
         Years, R/o Maalsar, Churu, District Churu.
7.       Prakash Sunda S/o Ratan Lal Sunda, Aged About 29
         Years, R/o Udsar, Bhebhra, Churu District Churu.
8.       Banwari Lal S/o Sultan Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
         07, Dharamshala K Pass, Village Bhuwas Taranagar,
         Churu, District Churu.
                                                                        ----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 Principal Secretary, Government Medical Education
         Department, Jaipur Rajasthan
5.       The    Commissioner             (Egs),       Rural      Development        And
         Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat,
         Jaipur, Rajasthan.
6.       The Secretary, Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society, Sardar

                          (Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 06:06:40 PM)
                         (Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:54:32 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:9503]                    (2 of 3)                        [CW-3683/2026]


         Saher, Churu
7.       The District Collector, Churu.
8.       The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Deepak Jangid


               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

23/02/2026

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 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 relevant paragraphs of the order dated 26.08.2025 passed

in the case of Rodu Lal (Supra) reads as follows:- 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

(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 06:06:40 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9503] (3 of 3) [CW-3683/2026]

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.

(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.

43. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of."

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 petitioners are 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 petitioners.

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

(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J surabhii/85-

(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 06:06:40 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter