Dismissed

Dr. Parmeshwar Gangawat S/O Sh. Vishweshwar Prasad Gangawat v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Sept 2022CW/25785/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed two connected writ petitions seeking to quash a university notification replacing contractual assistants. The Court found no employer-employee relationship as petitioners were engaged via a placement agency, failed to implead the agency, and lacked evidence of direct appointment, referencing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions were dismissed; the impugned notification was allowed to stand.

Dr. Parmeshwar Gangawat S/O Sh… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 868/2021

¶3

1.Dr. Parmeshwar Gangawat S/o Sh. Vishweshwar Prasad Gangawat, aged about 32 years, R/o Nala Mohalla, Dausa District Dausa, Rajasthan -303303

¶4

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Banshidhar Sharma, aged about 36 years, R/o 43, Bhartendu Nagar, Khatipura road, Jaipur, District Jaipur Rajasthan

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan through its secretary Higher Education , Govt. Secretariat Jaipur.

¶8

The Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Rajasthan Sanskrit University , Bhankrota Jaipur through its registrar

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25785/2018

¶12

1.Dr. Parmeshwar Gangawat S/o Sh. Vishweshwar Prasad Gangawat aged about 32 years R/o Nala Mohalla, dausa District Dausa Rajasthan-303303

¶13

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Bansidhar Sharma aged about 36 years, R/o 43, Bhartendu Nagar, Khatipura road, Jaipur District Jaipur Rajasthan

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

1.The State Of Rajasthan through its secretary Higher Education, Govt. Secretariat jaipur.

¶17

The Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Rajasthan Sanskrit University, Bhankrota Jaipur through its registrar.

¶18

M/s. Mewada Gaurav Sainani Security Co-operative Society Limited 25/18, Ashok Nagar, Military Road, Ajmer through its President.

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tribhuvan Narayan Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Kant Sharma

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Judgment / Order

22/09/2022

[CW-868/2021]

(2 of 5)

Since identical question is involved in both these writ petitions, hence with consent of the parties, these writ petitions have been heard together and are being finally decided by the present common order.

¶27

As prayed, the facts have been noticed from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.868/2021 and the prayer made therein reads as under:-

¶28

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and :-

¶29

I. By an appropriate issuing writ, order and direction in nature thereof the impugned NOTIFICATION NO. प .(375 ) IIIRD /पपपपपपपपपपप / पपपपपप /21 /

¶30

16.01.2021 ISSUED by the respondent no. 2 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶31

ii. By an appropriate issuing writ, order and direction in nature thereof the respondent no. 2 may kindly be directed to allow the petitioners rendered their service.

¶32

iii. Issue any other appropriate writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners in the fact of the circumstances of the case.

¶33

iv. Cost of writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioners.”

¶34

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were engaged through Diwakar’s Employment Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Placement Agency’) on the post of ‘Assistant Professor’. Thus by virtue of appointment being made by the placement agency, the petitioners do not appear to be regular employee of the respondents in any manner, as such there is no relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners have failed to place on record any documentary evidence to show that they were directly appointed by the respondents, rather the documentary evidence

¶35

[CW-868/2021]

¶36

(3 of 5)

¶37

placed by the petitioners on record shows that they were appointed by the placement agency and not directly by the respondents. Apart from it, no order terminating services of the petitioners has ever been passed by the respondents.

¶38

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were engaged through placement agency to impart education to the students in the respondent-University and have also received salary and other emoluments on the basis of services rendered by them. Counsel further submits that a notification dated 16.01.2021 has been issued by the respondents inviting applications from aspiring candidates for various posts including the post of Assistant Professors by way of holding Walk-InInteview and the respondents by way of this notification are going to replace the petitioners with another contractual employees and therefore the counsel prayed that the said notification be quashed and the petitioners be allowed to continue.

¶39

Counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petitions and submitted that there is no relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and the respondents. Counsel further submits that the petitioners were engaged through placement agency and they have no right to claim continuance in service as per their own wishes.

¶40

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶41

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.K. Suresh & Anr. Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors. reported in (2018) 17 Supreme Court Cases 641 wherein para No.7, has held as under:-

¶42

“7. In the first place, the Appellants failed to adduce any evidence to prove existence

¶43

[CW-868/2021]

¶44

(4 of 5)

¶45

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.”

¶46

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another judgment in the matter of Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. Piyush Kant Sharma reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 842 in para 8, has held as

¶47

under:-

¶48

“8. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in passing such an interim order restraining the Appellant Corporation from appointing new set of contractual employees in place of original writ Petitioners. No reasons, whatsoever have been assigned by the High Court while passing the impugned interim order. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that according to the Appellant Corporation, there was no regular sanctioned post of Computer Operator in the Appellant Corporation and that there was no employer-employee relationship between the original writ Petitioner and the Appellant Corporation and that the original writ Petitioner was a employee appointed by the contractor on contractual basis and worked with the Appellant Corporation on contractual basis. As the writ petition is pending before the High Court, we refrain

¶49

[CW-868/2021]

¶50

(5 of 5)

¶51

ourselves from making any further observations on merits. However, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, the High Court ought not to have passed such an interim order. Under the circumstances, the impugned interim order passed by the High Court requires to be quashed and set aside.”

¶52

These writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, there is no relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and the respondents; secondly, the petitioners have failed to implead the placement agency as party respondent in the writ petition; thirdly the petitioners have failed to submit any document on record which shows that they were appointed directly by the respondents; fourthly, in view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.K. Suresh and Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Ltd. (both supra), I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶53

In that view of the matter, these writ petitions stands dismissed.

¶54

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶55

Anu /91-92

Dr. Parmeshwar Gangawat S/O Sh. Vishweshwar Prasad Gangawat v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Parmeshwar Gangawat S/O Sh. Vishweshwar Prasad Gangawat v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhe Shyam Kumawat and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Divya Daga D/O Sh. Sohan Lal Daga Vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary

Shiv Singh Beniwal Son of Shri Khushi Ram Beniwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Jale Singh Son of Sh. Rupchand Vs Union of India

Dr Bajrang Lal Sharma S/O Sh. Naanag Ram Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Avalon Projects Vs State of Rajasthan