[2025:RJ-JP:33782] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3953/2024 Mukesh Kumari D/o Chandgi Ram W/o Devdutt Yadav, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Gordhanpura, District Kotputli-Behror. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, (Non-Gazetteed) Medical And Health Service, Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Kotputli- Behror. 4. Block Chief Medical Officer, Kotputli, District Kotputli Behror. 5. Medical Officer-Incharge, Urban Primary Health Centre Nagaji Ki Gaur, Kotputli, District Kotputli-Behror. 6. Amar Associate, 33, Parvati Nagar, Purani Chungi, Agra Road, Jaipur Through Proprietor. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Chand Yadav For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sweekriti Sharma for Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 26/08/2025 This writ petition is filed for quashing the order dated 24.02.2024 with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue on the post of Staff Nurse on contract basis. Indisputably, the petitioner was engaged through a private placement agency and vide order impugned dated 24.02.2024, her services have been terminated by the same private placement [2025:RJ-JP:33782] (2 of 2) [CW-3953/2024] agency. The petitioner never had any privity of contract with the official respondents. In identical circumstances, this Court has, vide its order dated 23.05.2025 passed in the case of Ram Khilari and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14835/2021, after considering the precedential law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Division Bench of this Court and another coordinate Bench of this Court, held that a person appointed through a private placement agency with no privity of contract with the State on its instrumentalities, cannot claim any relief against the official respondents. Since, in the instant case, the facts are identical as that in the case of Ram Khilari and Others (supra), the petitioner is not found entitled for the relief claimed in the writ petition. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J DIKSHA /75