[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Reena Kumari Katara vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:4002) on 22 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:4002]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 219/2026
1. Reena Kumari Katara D/o Shri Chhagan Lal, W/o Shri
Sukhlal Huvor, Aged About 40 Years, R/o -Naugama Tehsil
Bagidora District Banswara, Rajasthan.
2. Vimla D/o Shri Dhulji Pargi,w/o Shri Kamlesh Katara,
Aged About 31 Years, R/o Rupakheda, Post Barjdiya,
Tehsil Aanadpuri, District Banswara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Personnel (A-II) Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Tribal Area Development (TAD), Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Commissioner, Tribal Area Development (TAD),
Department, Udaipur.
4. Director, Swach Pariyojana, Udaipur.
5. Projct Officer, Swach Pariyojana, Banswara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
22/01/2026
1. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
matter has been heard for final disposal at the admission stage
itself.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was
appointed as Block Coordinator-cum-Assistant Coordinator
through the outsourcing agency by way of public advertisement.
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 04:53:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:4002] (2 of 3) [CW-219/2026]
The petitioner's request for consideration to govern her services
under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022
(hereinafter referred as 'Rules of 2022') was not considered on
the ground that the petitioner's services were not hired under any
direct contract with the respondents and she is working through
an outsourcing agency.
3. This controversy has already been settled by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Rodu Lal & Ors. Vs. The
State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
11737/2024 and connected batch of petitions, decided on
26.08.2025.
4. The 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 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.
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 04:53:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:4002] (3 of 3) [CW-219/2026]
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."
5. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is also
disposed of in the same terms as in the case of Rodu Lal & Ors.
(supra) and the petitioner is 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).
6. The said exercise shall be done within a period of three
months from the date of representation filed by the petitioner.
7. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
226s-PoonamS/-
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 04:53:28 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
