[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ashok Kumar Tripathi vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 19 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:13238]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6161/2026
1. Ashok Kumar Tripathi S/o Nand Lal Tripathi, Aged About
52 Years, R/o Banshi Dhar Bhawan, Sundar Vilas Kund,
Vallabhpura, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
(Working As District Project Manager (Technical Expert) At
Municipal Council, Rajsamand).
2. Sunil Yadav S/o Shivji Ram Yadav, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o 29, Ganesh Nagar, Patrakar Colony Road, Mansarovar,
Jaipur. (Working As District Project Manager (Technical
Expert) At Municipal Council, Rajsamand).
3. Malay Pandya S/o Pravin Pandya, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Rajpur, Ward No.01, Dungarpur. (Working As District
Project Manager (Technical Expert) At Municipal Council,
Dungarpur).
4. Gulab Singh Sisodia S/o Gopal Singh Sisodia, Aged About
46 Years, R/o Billiyon Ka Guda, Post Isarwas, Tehsil And
District Salumber. (Working As District Project Manager
(Technical Expert) At Municipal Council, Banswara).
5. Parikshit Jain S/o Paras Kumar Jain, Aged About 48 Years,
R/o H-15, Old Housing Board, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara.
(Working As District Project Manager (Technical Expert) At
Municipal Council, Bhilwara).
6. Hanuman Sahay Sharma S/o Rameshwar Lal Sharma,
Aged About 40 Years, R/o Dhani Dabawali, Ani, District
Jaipur. (Working As District Project Manager (Technical
Expert) At Municipal Council, Sirohi).
7. Om Singh S/o Madan Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
227, Meghwalo Ka Bass, Chadwas, District Pali. (Working
As District Project Manager (Technical Expert) At
Municipal Council, Sirohi).
8. Dr. Monika Soni D/o Pawan Kumar Soni, Aged About 41
Years, R/o 512/10, Immanul School Road, Dadwara, Kota
Junction, District Kota. (Working As District Project
Manager (Technical Expert) At Municipal Council, Bundi).
9. Harsh Vardhan Singh S/o Vinay Pratap Singh, Aged About
34 Years, R/o 73/78, Shiprapath, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
(Working As District Project Manager (Technical Expert) At
Municipal Council, Dungarpur).
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 04:33:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/03/2026 at 08:48:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13238] (2 of 4) [CW-6161/2026]
10. Atai Khan Rahuman S/o Mamad Khan Rahuman, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Tamachi Ki Gafan, Tehsil Chohtan,
District Barmer, Rajasthan. (Working As Community
Organiser).
11. Gautam Mathur S/o Subodh Chandra Mathur, Aged About
36 Years, R/o Quarter No.iii/8, Bsnl Colony, Mahaveer
Nagar, Barmer, Rajasthan. (Working As District Project
Manager (Technical Expert).
12. Monika Mehta D/o Shri Nawal Singh Mehta, Aged About
37 Years, R/o Ghandi Nagar Sector No.5, Chittorgarh,
Rajasthan. (Working As District Project Manager
(Technical Expert).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Local Self Government, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director And Joint Secretary, Directorate Of Local
Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Project Director, Directors Of Local Self Department,
Jaipur.
5. The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Rajsamand.
6. The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Dungarpur.
7. The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Banswara.
8. The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bhilwara.
9. The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Sirohi.
10. The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bundi.
11. The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Barmer.
12. The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Chittorgarh.
13. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla.
For Respondent(s) :
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 04:33:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/03/2026 at 08:48:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13238] (3 of 4) [CW-6161/2026]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
19/03/2026
1. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
matter has been heard for final disposal at the admission stage
itself.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that the facts in the present case is similar to the facts in D.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 11737/2024 (Rodu Lal & Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 26.08.2025.
3. The operative portion of the order dated 26.08.2025 passed
in the case of Rodu Lal (Supra) reads as follows:-
"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: (i) The respondents
shall consider the individual case of each contractual
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 04:33:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13238] (4 of 4) [CW-6161/2026]
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.
43. All pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of."
4. In light of the order cited above, the present writ petition is
disposed of in the same terms as in the case of Rodu Lal & Ors.
(supra). The petitioners shall be at liberty to make a
representation before the concerned authorities within a period of
15 days. On such representation, the concerned authorities are
directed to dispose of the same in light of the decision passed in
case of Rodu Lal within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of this order.
5. All the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
170-sumer/-
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 04:33:50 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
