[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Murti vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 January, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:1652-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17200/2025
1. Ram Murti S/o Shri Mahender Singh, Aged About 36
Years, R/o 549, Mahal Vas, Jasana, Hanumangarh (Raj.).
2. Jagdish S/o Shri Dhanpat Ram Sharma, Aged About 37
Years, Ward No. 10, Kumharon Ka Mohalla, Ramgarh, 16
Dpn, Hanumangarh (Raj.).
3. Mustak Mohammad S/o Gani Mohammad, Aged About 47
Years, 30 Ntr, Po Bhukarka, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
4. Raj Kumar Tetarwal S/o Shri Devi Lal Tetarwal, Aged
About 45 Years, Ward No. 10, Raysinghpura, Dalpatpura,
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
5. Himanshu S/o Shri Late. Moti Lal Goyal, Aged About 25
Years, 141, Sarsawati Nagar, Behind Govt. Hospital,
Pokaran, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
----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 -Cum- District Programme
Coordinator, Egs, Hanumangarh.
6. The District Collector -Cum- District Programme
Coordinator, Egs, Jaisalmer.
7. The Chief Executive Officer -Cum- Additional District
Programme Coordinator, Egs, Zila Parishad,
Hanumangarh.
8. The Chief Executive Officer -Cum- Additional District
Programme Coordinator, Egs, Zila Parishad, Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 15/01/2026 at 04:29:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/01/2026 at 08:43:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1652-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-17200/2025]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Pareek.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG.
Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG.
Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
13/01/2026
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
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
(Uploaded on 15/01/2026 at 04:29:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1652-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-17200/2025]
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. Accordingly, the present writ petition is 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 and with same
liberty of filing the representation.
5. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
12-Zeeshan
(Uploaded on 15/01/2026 at 04:29:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
