Dismissed

Javed Mohd. Sheikh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC28 Jul 2023CW/1089/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order dismissed connected writ petitions claiming regularisation of service for placement agency appointees. Relying on Deepak Kumar Gupta, the court held that without direct appointment by the State or an employer-employee relationship, the jurisdiction under Article 226 was not exercisable. Stay petitions were also dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions and stay petitions dismissed with a copy of the order to be placed in the connected file.

Javed Mohd. Sheikh Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:24094]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 570/2020

¶4

Gautam Mathur S/o Shri Subodh Chandra Mathur, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Type 34Rd Quarter No. 8, Bsnl Colony, Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer.

¶5

Sunil Kumar Garg S/o Shri Devi Lal Garg, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of 257, Bazar Gali, Jain Mandir, Bagudar Bhilwara.

¶6

Hansraj Nai S/o Shri Surajmal Nai, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Jora Patta, Lohsana, Churu.

¶7

Tejnarayan Nai S/o Shri Surajmal Nai, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Jora Patta, Lohsana, Churu.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶11

The Director, Local Self Government Department, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3, Rajmahal Resident Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Lines Phatak, Jaipur.

¶12

Nagar Parishad, Barmer, Through Its Commissioner, Barmer.

¶13

Nagar Palika Nathdawara, Bhilwara, Through Its Commissioner, Nathdawara, Bhilwara.

¶14

Nagar Palika Mandal Ladnu, Nagaur, Through Its Commissioner, Ladnu, Nagaur.

¶15

Nagar Parishad Sujangarh, Through Its Commissioner, Sujangarh, Churu.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

Connected With

¶18

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1089/2020

¶19

Javed Mohd. Sheikh S/o Nazir Mohd. Sheikh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 03 Nala Mohall Near Sahani Mandir, Jhalwar Rajasthan 326001

¶20

Ashok Kumar Tripathi S/o Shri Nandlal Tripathi,, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Bansi Dhar Bhawan, Sunder Vilas Kund Ke Pass, Nathdwara, Dist. Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

¶21

Suresh Kumar Meghwal S/o Shri Meeralal Meghwal,, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Kohi, Post Kajalikheda, Dist.

(2 of 5)

[2023:RJ-JD:24094]

[CW-570/2020]

Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

¶26

Kamal Kishore Moud S/o Shri Baldev Moud,, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Segwa, Post Semliya, Dist. Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

¶27

Bhuvnesh Goyal S/o Late Shri R. S. Goyal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o G-239, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶28

Lalit Kumar Gurjar S/o Shankar Lal Gurjar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village And Post Sakroda, Tehsil Malvi, District Udaipur.

¶29

Rajni Takhur W/o Madhukar Verma,, Aged About 35 Years, R/o H/no. 463, Tower No. 4, 6Th Floor, Treasure Vihar, Mohanpura, Badagaon, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶30

Narendra Kumar Swami S/o Shyam Sundar Swami,, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Khanpur, Post Ashota, Tehsil Ladnun, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶31

Hitendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Vpo Andiyari, Tehsil Roopwas District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

¶32

Ram Niwas S/o Late Shri Bhagirath Ram,, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 42 Ganesh Nagar, Near Baba Paradise, Patrakar Colony, Golyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶33

Benat Kaur D/o Bal Karan Singh, Aged About 29 Years, Chak 34, Tehsil Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶34

Kuldeep Sharma S/o Shri Durga Prasad Sharma, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jhalapartan, Jhalawar, Rajasthan.

¶35

----Petitioners

¶36

Versus

¶37

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶38

The Director, Local Self Government Department, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Lines Phatak, Jaipur.

¶39

Nagar Parishad, Rajsamand, Through Its Commissioner Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

(3 of 5)

[2023:RJ-JD:24094]

[CW-570/2020]

Nagar Parishad, Pratapgarh, Through Its Commissioner Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

¶44

Nagar Parishad, Chittorgarh, Through Its Commissioner Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

¶45

Nagar Nigam, Jodhpur, Through Its Commissioner Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶46

Nagar Parishad, Balotra, Through Its Commissioner, Balotra, Barmer, Rajasthan.

¶47

Nagar Nigam, Udaipur, Through Its Commissioner Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶48

Nagar Nigam, Jalore, Through Its Commissioner, Jalore, Rajasthan.

¶49

Nagar Nigam, Kota, Through Its Commissioner, Kota, Rajasthan.

¶50

Nagar Parishad Nagaur, Through Its Commissioner, Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶51

Nagar Parishad Dungarpur, Through Its Commissioner, Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

¶52

----Respondents

¶53

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Prajapat for Mr. Rajesh Parihar

¶54

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶55

Order

¶56

28/07/2023

¶57

Mr. Kuldeep Prajapat, learned counsel for the respondent – State, at the outset, pointed out that the issue involved in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by the judgment dated 06.04.2022, passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in Deepak Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6232/2019.

[2023:RJ-JD:24094]

[CW-570/2020]

(4 of 5)

Learned counsel for the petitioners are not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.

¶62

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the judgment in the case of Deepak Kumar Gupta (supra), this Court finds that the controversy involved in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by the said judgment in the case of Deepak Kumar Gupta (supra).

¶63

In the case of Deepak Kumar Gupta (supra), this Court has held as under:-

¶64

“14. Admittedly, there is no relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and the respondents as the offer of appointment was given to the petitioners by the placement agency and the salary/remuneration was also paid to the petitioners by the placement agency. Initially, the contract was for a period of one year and the term of petitioners’ services was further extended from time to time by the placement agency. The Rules of 2022 referred by the counsel for the petitioners relate to the persons appointed by the State Government on contract basis through public advertisement and admittedly the petitioners were not engaged as contractual employees directly by the State Government rather were appointed by the placement agency, as such the Rules of 2022 are not at all applicable in the case of the petitioners. 15. In view of the above discussion, these writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the

¶65

5. petitioners have failed to establish their relationship of employee and employer with the respondent-State and only narration in the petition cannot be considered to be a justifiable ground to grant the relief prayed for, unless it is supported by cogent evidence on record as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.K. Suresh (supra); secondly, as per own version of the petitioners, they were appointment by the placement agency but failed to implead the placement agency as party respondent in the writ petitions; thirdly, the salary/remuneration was also paid to the petitioners by the placement agency and not by

(5 of 5)

[2023:RJ-JD:24094]

[CW-570/2020]

the State Government; and lastly claim of the petitioners for regularisation in the State cannot be approved by this court as the petitioners were never appointed by the State Government against sanctioned post on regular basis, rather, as already observed above they were appointed by the placement agency; therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the petitioners have completely failed to make out a case against the respondents, as such I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶70

16. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, these writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. A copy of the order be placed in each connected file.”

¶71

These writ petitions are also dismissed in light of the

¶72

judgment of Deepak Kumar Gupta (supra).

¶73

Stay petitions also stand dismissed accordingly.

¶74

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶75

298 & 299-Arvind/-

Javed Mohd. Sheikh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javed Mohd. Sheikh 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jawan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhojraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Kumar Sihag Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishori Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Manju Vs State of Rajasthan