[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhawani Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:3372) on 20 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:3372]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 594/2026
1. Bhawani Singh S/o Shri Jay Singh Charan, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Village Ujlan, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
2. Kailash Chandr S/o Shri Bagud Ram, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Village Khetolai, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
3. Sumer Singh Bhati S/o Shri Bhur Singh Bhati, Aged About
40 Years, R/o Zhinzhaniyali, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
4. Bhairulal S/o Shri Bhagu Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Village Dangara, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
5. Ram Kailash Changal S/o Shri Kuna Ram, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Deediya Kalan, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
6. Sendhu Singh S/o Shri Tane Rao Singh, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Khabha, Dedha, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
7. Deendayal S/o Shri Nawala Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/
o Baramsar With Baisakhi, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
8. Om Prakash S/o Shri Amolakh Ram, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Bheelon Ka Vas, Choudhariya, Kathodi, District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
9. Nazar Ali S/o Shri Kasam Khan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Chicharasar, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
10. Jitendar Singh S/o Shri Bhanvar Singh, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Village Post Eta, Chinu, District Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan. ----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Mission Director (Nhm), Directorate Of Medical Health
And Family Welfare Services, Swasthya Bhawan, C-
Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Director (Public Health), Medical And Health Services,
Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur.
4. The Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical And Health
Services, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan,
Jaipur.
5. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
6. The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
7. The Secretary, General Administration Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
8. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jaisalmer, District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. ----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratana Ram
For Respondent(s) : --
(Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 03:59:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/01/2026 at 08:58:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3372] (2 of 3) [CW-594/2026]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
20/01/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issued
involved in the present writ petition is 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.
2. 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
(Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 03:59:14 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3372] (3 of 3) [CW-594/2026]
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."
3. 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 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).
4. The said exercise shall be done within a period of three
months from the date of representation filed by the petitioner.
5. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
232-BhumikaP/-
(Uploaded on 20/01/2026 at 03:59:14 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
