[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Parmeshwar Nai vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:3229) on 19 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:3229]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1035/2026
1. Parmeshwar Nai S/o Badri Lal Nai, Aged About 45 Years,
R/o Gadola, Pratapgarh, Raj. (Presently Working As
District Project Coordinator Under Swachh Bharat Mission
(Rural), Zila Parishad Pratapgarh).
2. Rakesh Kumar Jatav S/o Prem Chand Jatav, Aged About
36 Years, R/o Post Ganeshpura, Chhoti Sadri, Raju Khera,
Pratapgarh, Raj.(Presently Working As Block Coordinator
Under Swachh Bharat Mission (Rural) Panchayat Samiti,
Chhoti Sadri)
3. Manoj Kumar Jain S/o Gattu Lal Jain, Aged About 46
Years, R/o salumber Road, Ward No. 3, Dhariyawad,
Pratapgarh Raj.(Presently Working As Block Coordinator
Under Swachh Bharat Mission (Rural) Panchayat Samiti,
Dhariyawad).
4. Praveen Kumar Suthar S/o Bhimlesh Suthar, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Neenor, Pratapgarh Raj.(Presently Working
As Block Coordinator Under Swachh Bharat Mission
(Rural) Panchayat Samiti, Dalot, Pratapgarh)
5. Narendra Kumar Meena S/o Rajmal Meena, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Kachotiya, Pipalkhunt, Dotad, Pratapgarh,
Raj.(Presently Working As Block Coordinator Under
Swachh Bharat Mission (Rural) Panchayat Samiti,
Suhagpura, Pratapgarh).
6. Punam Chand Malviya S/o Vardichand Malviya, Aged
About 43 Years, R/o Malviya Mohalla, Ward No. 8, Jajali,
Arnod, Pratapgarh, Raj.(Presently Working As Block
Coordinator Under Swachh Bharat Mission (Rural)
Panchayat Samiti, Arnod,pratapgarh)
7. Ganesh Lal Meena S/o Surajmal Meena, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Talai Fala, Dantlakund, Rampuriya, Pratapgarh,
Raj.(Presently Working As Block Coordinator Under
Swachh Bharat Mission (Rural) Panchayat Samiti,
Pipalkunth, Pratapgarh)
8. Karu Lal Devada S/o Mathura Lal Devada, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Ward No. 5, Khoriya, Pratapgarh, Raj.
(Presently Working As Block Coordinator Under Swachh
Bharat Mission (Rural) Panchayat Samiti, Pratapgarh)
9. Piyush Patidar S/o Rajesh Patidar, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Thara Pratapgarh, Raj.(Presently Working As Block
Coordinator Under Swachh Bharat Mission (Rural)
Panchayat Samiti, Dhamotar, Pratapgarh)
10. Shubham Jain S/o Inder Mal Jain, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Jaroli Gali, Ward No. 9, Gopal Ganj, Pratapgarh, Raj.
(Presently Working As Accountant Assistant Under
Swachh Bharat Mission (Rural) Panchayat Samiti,
Pratapgarh)
----Petitioners
(Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 02:41:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/01/2026 at 08:53:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3229] (2 of 3) [CW-1035/2026]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Clean Indian Mission (Rural) (Swachh Bharat
Mission), Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. The District Collector, Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pratapgarh,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitesh Kandare
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
19/01/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the
action of the respondents in not considering the representation
filed by the petitioners to treat the petitioners as covered under
the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2022').
2. The case of the petitioners is that they were employed with
the respondents through an indirect contract by being sponsored
through an outsourcing agency. The petitioners claim that their
case is squarely covered under the law laid down by the decision
of Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
11737/2024: Rodu Lal & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(decided on 26.08.2025). The operative portion of the order dated
26.08.2025 (supra) reads as follows:
(Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 02:41:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3229] (3 of 3) [CW-1035/2026]
"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."
3. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the present writ petition
is allowed and the respondents are directed to decide the
representation of the petitioner in the same terms as in Rodu Lal
& Ors. (supra).
4. The said exercise shall be done within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of this order.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
276s-PoonamS/-
(Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 02:41:28 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
