Allowed

Satwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Jul 2023CW/10714/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order terminating petitioners' services as unsatisfactory, declaring the State lacked authority to do so. The petitioners' contract had expired, so relief regarding reinstatement was denied, though the placement agency was permitted to engage them again.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.06.2022 was quashed; no relief for reinstatement granted as contract had expired; placement agency free to re-engage petitioners.

Satwant Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:19365]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10714/2022

¶5

Satwant Singh S/o Shri Hardeep Singh, aged about 36 years, R/ o Village 8 NNB, Post Office 88 NA, Tehsil Padampur, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

Director, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶10

Joint Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶11

National Informatics Service Center Incorporated, through Senior Manager, Office At III^rd Floor, North West Building, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

Connected With

¶14

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10723/2022

¶15

Ashish Rajvanshi S/o Late Shri Rajkumar Rajvanshi, aged about 42 years, R/o Advocate Street, Choutina Well, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶19

Director, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶20

Joint Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

(2 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:19365]

[CW-10714/2022]

National Informatics Service Center Incorporated, through Senior Manager, Office At III^rd Floor, North West Building, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶25

----Respondents

¶26

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Hemant Shrimali.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG with
	Mr. Piyush Bhandari.

¶27

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶28

Order

¶29

03/07/2023

¶30

The matters come up on applications preferred on behalf of petitioners for early hearing of the petitions.

¶31

The applications are allowed.

¶32

By way of the present writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 15.06.2022, passed by the Joint Secretary, (District Planning), Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (respondent No.2).

¶33

The facts in brief are that the petitioners were engaged on different posts through a placement agency – National Informatics Service Centre Inc through Sr. Manager (respondent No.4).

¶34

The petitioners have placed on record various certificates, issued by the respondents, showing their services to be found satisfactory.

¶35

Mr. Hemant Shrimali, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents themselves have found petitioners' services to be satisfactory till November, 2022 and abruptly ended their services by the impugned order dated

[2023:RJ-JD:19365]

[CW-10714/2022]

(3 of 4)

15.06.2022, indicating therein that petitioners' services are unsatisfactory.

¶40

Learned counsel argued that the impugned order, passed by the respondent No.3 is per se arbitrary and contrary to facts and law involved in the present case.

¶41

It was argued that if petitioners' engagement were to be brought to an end, the same could be done only by the respondent No.4 - the placement agency, that too in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement between the petitioners and the placement agency. He added that the respondent No.3 cannot pass such an order and dispense with petitioners' engagement.

¶42

Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned counsel for the respondent - State on the other hand argued that the petitioners were engaged through a placement agency and there is no direct nexus between the petitioners and the respondent - State and if they have any grievance, they should avail alternative remedy instead of invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶43

He argued that the fact whether services of the petitioners were satisfactory or not is a question of fact and the same cannot be gone into by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction.

¶44

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶45

Petitioners have placed on record the certificates evincing that their services have been found to be satisfactory. This Court fails to understand that if services of the petitioners were found satisfactory till November, 2022 what new events transpired which

[2023:RJ-JD:19365]

[CW-10714/2022]

(4 of 4)

led to respondents terming petitioners' services as unsatisfactory. Maybe, there were certain action or activities done by the petitioners, but then, appropriate action could to be taken against the petitioners in terms of the agreement which was executed between the petitioners and the placement agency (respondent No.4).

¶50

The State's argument that there is no direct nexus between the petitioners and the respondent - State is fallacious rather counter productive. If that be so, the order impugned dated 15.06.2022 becomes all the more illegal, because, if the State has no control over petitioners' services, the respondent No.3 could not disengage the petitioners and if any action was to be taken against the petitioners, the same could be taken by the respondent No.4 (the placement agency).

¶51

The impugned order dated 15.06.2022, passed by the respondent No.3 is clearly illegal and thus, quashed.

¶52

Since, petitioners' contract, which was till 31.12.2022 is already over, no relief of their engagement pursuant to the same contract can be given despite quashing of the order dated 15.06.2022.

¶53

The respondent No.4 shall however be at liberty to avail petitioners' services, in accordance with law at the earlier place or any other office, if deemed appropriate.

¶54

The writ petitions so also stay petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶55

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶56

314 & 315-DJ/-

Satwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chiman Lal Labana Vs the Secretary

Pooja Bhambi Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Singh Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Rajat Uppal Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Capital Construction Co. Vs Union of India