Placement-agency personnel working under DAY-NULM sought protection against termination, direct State engagement, regular pay and regularisation. The court held that they had not established an employment relationship with the State and that the contractual hiring rules did not apply. All writ petitions were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6232/2019
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
Connected with
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20168/2019
Nisha Batra W/o Shri Sushil Batra, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of 7A, Main Road, Setia Colony, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
(2 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6242/2019
----Petitioners
Versus
(3 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
(4 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
By Caste- Brahamin, R/o 2/183 Near Shiv Mandi,r Nimbark Colony, Vardaman Nagar, Hinduan City, Karauli, Rajasthan-322230.
----Petitioners
Versus
(5 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
----Petitioners
(6 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
Commissioner, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7173/2019
Ashwani Kumar S/o Shri Prahalad Rai Gomlada, Aged About 37 Years, R/o D-79, Pragati Path, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
(7 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13324/2019
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17292/2019
Ashish Sharma S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Basant Vihar Colony, Ward No. 19, Jaipur Road, Chomu Distt. Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
(8 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
(9 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
----Petitioners
(10 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
Jaipurrajasthan.
(11 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
House, Kohinoor Complex, A Wing, Next To Maharaja Hotel, Dahisar, Mumbai.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17913/2019
Ashok Kumar Khatik S/o Shri Devi Lal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Chabri Chowk, Shanti Nagar, Alanpur, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17959/2019
Dilip Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Shiv Shankar Tiwari, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 29 Saket Nagar Vistar, Ward No. 19, Near Kanchan City, Jhalawar Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19582/2019
(12 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20292/2019
Mukut Bihari Sharma Son Of Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Ganesh Mandir, 21, Sumer Nagar,ajmer Road, Madanganj, Kishangarh, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
(13 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20675/2019
Soman Mendiratta D/o Shri N.k. Mendiratta, Aged About 31 Years, R/o B-10-E, Govind Marg, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21455/2019
(14 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
144, Shiv Shakti Vihar, Benar Road, Near Benar Railway Station, Jotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
(15 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
Commissioner.
----Respondents
(16 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
Ward No. 14, Rajputo Ka Mohalla, Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan
(17 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
----Petitioners
Versus
(18 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
Commissioner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21603/2019
Yatendra Sharma S/o Nemi Chand, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of 554 Panchayat Ghar Ke Pass,rupbas,bharatpur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21604/2019
Avadhesh Meena S/o Shree Govind Lal Patel, Aged About 37 Years, By Caste Meena Resident Bhawan Nimoda Bamori Kalan Baran District Baran (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21618/2019
Dr.monika Soni D/o Pawan Kumar Soni, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Soni, Resident Of Radha Krishna Mandir Street No.2, Dadwara,kota (Rajasthan).
(19 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21700/2019
Jairam Meena Son Of Shri Panchu Ram Meena, Aged About 48 Years, By Caste Meena, Resident Of Kyara, Suratgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Petitioners
(20 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12/2020
Sourabh Kumar Gupta Son Of Radha Mohan Gupta, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 19 Basant Vihar Jaipur Road, Chomu, Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1068/2020
Neeraj Saiwal Son Of Narain Swaroop Saiwal, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Lal Kothi,naya Bas,alwar District Alwar (Rajasthan.)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
(21 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
Versus
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1086/2020
----Petitioners
(22 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
Years, Resident Of Ward No.10,malliyo Ka Mohalla, Kawalda, Kota (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 234/2021
Pooja Jindal D/o Rajesh Kumar Jindal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Krishna Nand Bazaar, Near By Old Nagar Palika Badrinath Bazaar, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : | Mr. Saurabh Tiwari Mr. Himanshu Jain Mr. Ankit Bishnoi Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta Mr. Rajesh Sharma |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : | Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG assisted by Mr. Mehul Harkawat Ms. Archana Mr. Yashodhar Pandey Mr. Abhishek Paliwal Mr. Bhanu Pratap Saini Mr. Rahul Sharma on behalf of Mr. Rajneesh Gupta Mr. BrijKishore Sharma |
(23 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
Ms. Nitika Sud Mr. Ritwick Dave Mr. Shyogi Ram Sharma Mr. Shyogi Ram, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Lokesh Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Reportable Order
06/04/2022
“It is, therefore, humbly and most respectfully prayed that your lordships may very graciously be pleased to admit and allow this Civil Writ Petition and further;
i. By issuing appropriate writ order or direction, Respondents may be restrained from terminating the services of the petitioners from the post in question and they may further be restrained from replacing the petitioners from another set of contractual employees in DAY-NULUM scheme till the currency of the project.
ii. By issuing appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may be directed to strictly adhere with the operational guidelines issued by the government of India in respect of DAY-NULM project and accordingly respondents may be directed to extend the benefits as mentioned in the operation guidelines.
iii. By issuing appropriate writ order or direction, the order dated 08.03.2019 may be quashed and set aside and respondents may be directed to engage the petitioners directly on the post in question.
iv. That any other order or direction as this Hon’ble High Court may deem fair, just and
(24 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the Petitioner.”
(25 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
by the placement agency initially for a period of one year and their term on contract basis was extended further from time to time. It has also come on record that taking into consideration the achievement of 100% of targets allocated under the said scheme, the term of said placement agency was accordingly extended by the State Government, thereafter the term of said placement agency was ultimately terminated on 15.06.2019. After the termination, a new tender was floated in which the placement agency namely B.S.A. Corporation, Pune was selected, which entered into a contract with the State Government for the purpose of providing manpower on various posts. Thus, a perusal of the factual matrix shows that the State Government entered into a contract with the placement agency for manpower and the placement agency invited applications for appointment on various posts on contract basis and after consideration, the persons like the petitioners were given appointment, as such it is clear that the petitioners’ appointments was contractual, made by the placement agency, their salary/remuneration was also paid by the placement agency and therefore the petitioners are not either contractual or regular employees of the State Government in any manner.
(26 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
the recommendations of the State Government. Counsel further submits that the scheme in question is still continuing but the respondents in an arbitrary manner want to terminate their services. Counsel further submits that in other States, the persons have been directly appointed on contract basis by the State Government and not through the placement agency, therefore, the action of the respondents in terminating services of the petitioners is violative of principles of natural justice. Counsel further submits that the respondents have not paid due salary to the petitioners and even in some of the cases, the respondents have orally terminated their services. Counsel further submits that their salary has already been reduced by the respondents without any justifiable reason. Counsel further submits that the State Government has enacted Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022 (hereinafter to be referred as the “ Rules of 2022 ”) vide notification dated 11.01.2022. Counsel further submits that the respondents have also issued the order dated 31.03.2022 with regard to implementation of the Rules of 2022.
(27 of 30) [CW-6232/2019]
failed to implead any of the concerned official of the Central Government as party-respondent in the writ petitions. Counsel further submits that during pendency of the writ petitions, number of posts have been reduced and certain were abolished. Counsel further submits that the Rules of 2022 framed by the State Government provides for appointment of the persons on contract basis directly by the State Government and as per Rule 5 of the Rules of 2022, if the respondents fail to engage the persons on contract basis then the applications have to be invited through public advertisement, which is not the situation here as in the present matter no public advertisement has been issued by the State Government, rather the petitioners were appointed by the placement agency, as such the Rules of 2022 are not at all applicable in the case of the petitioners as they are not the contractual employees of the State Government and lastly prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
(28 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.652/2021 decided on 05.08.2021.
“In the first place, the Appellants failed to adduce any evidence to prove existence of any relationship between them and the FCI; Second, when the documents on record showed that the Appellants were appointed by the FCI Head Load Workers Co-Operative Society but not by the FCI then obviously the remedy of the Appellants, if at all, in relation to their any service dispute was against the said Society being their employer but not against the FCI; Third, the FCI was able to prove with the aid of evidence that the Appellants were in the employment of the said Society whereas the Appellants were not able to prove with the aid of any documents that they were appointed by the FCI and how and on what basis they claimed to be in the employment of the FCI except to make an averment in the writ petitions in that behalf. It was, in our opinion, not sufficient to grant any relief to the Appellants.”
Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1040/2021 and other connected appeals,
decided on 20.12.2021) has held as under:-
“This quite apart, there was clear agreement between the Government and the service provider which was essentially for providing the workforce for implementing the scheme. The entire responsibility of providing the workforce was on the service provider. The agreement clearly envisaged that upon completion of the tenure of the contract the workforce provided by the service provider would be withdrawn. In clear
(29 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
terms thus there was no privity of contract between Government and the petitioners. This is not a case of engagement of the employees by the Government on contractual basis. The contract was between the Government and the service provider and if at all it may be an understanding between the service provider and the petitioners. In any case, the engagement cannot be seen as engagement of the petitioners by the Government on contractual basis. Any other view would make the task of the service provider wholly redundant and would also amount to overriding the agreement between the Government and the service provider. The general principle therefore that one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by the another set of contractual employees as long as the work lasts cannot be applied in the present case.
In the result all the appeals are dismissed. Pending applications if any also stand disposed of.”
(30 of 30)
[CW-6232/2019]
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
JYOTI /13-42
2 issues framed by the court
Were personnel engaged and paid by a placement agency under DAY-NULM employees of the State entitled to service protection and regularisation?
Did the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022 apply to personnel appointed through a placement agency?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohd. Abdul Kadir & Anr. Vs. Director General of Police, Assam & Ors.Referred¶474
(2009) 6 SCC 611. · Who else cites this
Rohitash Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶477
Rohitash Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3540/2020) and other connected petitions
Prahlad Sahai & Ors. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr.Referred¶477
Prahlad Sahai & Ors. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14618/2020)
Khemraj Mali & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶481
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.652/2021
K.K. Suresh & Anr. Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors.Relied on¶483
(2018) 17 Supreme Court Cases 641
Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Relied on¶485
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1040/2021
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Deepak Kumar Gupta
Aditya Kumar Sharma
Mitesh Srivastava
State Of Rajasthan
Director Local Self Government Department, Government Of Rajasthan
Nagar Parshid, Sikar
INDERJEET SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
