Akram Khan vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 47 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 47 Raj
Judgement Date : 6 January, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Akram Khan vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 6 January, 2026

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:185-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23120/2025

1.       Akram Khan S/o Alldita, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ward
         No. 2, Labana, Post Office Baropal, 7 Stb, Po Pilibangan,
         District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
2.       Ranveer S/o Shri Indraj, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward
         No. 3, Doltawali 3T, Po Pilibangan, District Hanumangarh
         (Raj.).
3.       Hemraj S/o Shri Girdhari Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
         Ward No. 9, Birkali, Hanumangarh (Raj.).
4.       Deepak S/o Shri Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward
         No. 1, Pilibangan Gaon, District Hanumangarh (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.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     None present
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
                                 Mr. Pawan Bharti for
                                 Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG


     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH Order

06/01/2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners may be permitted to file representation in light of the

(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 03:41:31 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:185-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-23120/2025]

order dated 26.08.2025 passed by Co-Ordinate 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.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents is agreeable to the

proposition and submits that representation shall be decided in

light of the Rodu Lal & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

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:

(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 03:41:31 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:185-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-23120/2025]

(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. Thus, the petition is disposed of in 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

42-charul/-

(Uploaded on 06/01/2026 at 03:41:31 PM)