[2025:RJ-JP:15107] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4416/2025 1. Vikki Son Of Chiranji Lal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 33, Near Govt. School, Harijan Basti, Brahmpuri, Jaipur. (Raj.) 2. Ankush Khoda Son Of Raju Khoda, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Harijan Basti, Subhash Chowk, Jaipur. 3. Payal D/o Gopal Ninanniya, Aged About 22 Years, R/o 7, Rajamal Ka Talab, Kanwar Nagar, Harijan Basti, Jaipur. 4. Manish Chedwal Son Of Shri Dharmendra Chedwal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 54, Rajamal Ka Talab, Kanwar Nagar, Harijan Basti, Jaipur. 5. Vijay Son Of Babulal Nagpal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Nagpal Petrol Pump Ke Pichhe, New Amer Road, Jaipur. 6. Mukesh Kumar Ranawat Son Of Shri Kishor Kumar Ranawat, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Harijan Basti, Purana Amer Road, Jaipur. 7. Pratibha Wife Of Shri Mukesh Sarsar, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 136, Mochiyon Ki Gali, Shyampuri, Hida Ki Mori, Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur City (Raj.) 8. Bobi Chouhan Son Of Rajesh Chouhan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Khohra Pada, Ward No. 2, Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.) 9. Manju Devi Wife Of Sonu, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 10, Rajamal Ka Talab, Harijan Basti, Kanwar Nagar, Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur. (Raj.) 10. Rajendra Son Of Madan Lal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 19, Shivad, Jorabar Singh Gate, Jaipur. 11. Sunita Devi Wife Of Sanjay Lakhan, Aged About 42 Years, R/o A-44, Tejaji Ki Bagichi, Sarawasti Colony, Purani Basti, Jaipur. (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Secretary Ayush Mantralaya, Ayush Bhawan, B Block Gpo Complex, Ina, New Delhi. 110023 2. Director, National Institute Of Ayurveda, (N.i.a.) Jorabar [2025:RJ-JP:15107] (2 of 3) [CW-4416/2025] Singh Gate, Amer Road, Jaipur. 3. Ananta Source And Security Services, A-1, Mahaveer Colony, Old Ramgarh Road, Amer Road, Jaipur. Through Its Proprietor. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naseemuddin Qazi with Mr. Shamsul Aarefin For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vandini Chaturvedi for Mr. Prashant Chaturvedi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 03/04/2025 Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a group of petitioners have filed present petition who were on-roll of a placement agency i.e. Alert Enterprises. It is submitted that respondent-hospital has terminated the contract with the placement agency i.e. Alert Enterprises resultant to which the services of the petitioners also got terminated. It is prayed that a judicial intervention is called for and it may be directed that no fresh contract be signed. Heard and perused the material available on record. It is opined that the present petition is not tenable on the following grounds: (i) That there is no employer-employee relationship between respondent and the petitioners. (ii) That the petitioners were engaged through a placement agency. There was a privity of contract therefore, they have no locus standi qua the respondents. [2025:RJ-JP:15107] (3 of 3) [CW-4416/2025] (iii) That the terms and conditions of a fresh contract is ought to be made applicable now. In view of the above, and in light of the ratio encapsulated in (2018) 17 SCC 641 titled as K.K. Suresh and Ors. Vs. Food Corporation of India and Ors. the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/105