[2025:RJ-JP:19270] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5776/2025 Pradeep Gurjar S/o. Shri Dayaram Gurjar, Resident Of Baskheda, Post Devri Jodh, Tehsil Chhipabarod, District Baran (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Director (Public Health), Medical And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 4. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Baran. 5. The District Collector, Baran. 6. The Principal Medical Officer, Saheed Rajmal Meena Govt. District Hospital, Baran, District Baran. 7. The Member Secretary, Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society, Baran. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 07/05/2025 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.6-the Chief Medical Officer, Government District Hospital, District Baran whereby, the Nursing Superintendent was directed to send the nursing staff as per the list dated 19.11.2024 furnished by the contractual firm Ram Krishana Vidhya Samiti. [2025:RJ-JP:19270] (2 of 4) [CW-5776/2025] Indisputably, the petitioner is an employee of the private placement agency who has entered into a contract with the State Government for supply of manpower and the petitioner has no privity of contract with the State Government. A coordinate Bench of this Court has, in the case of Amita Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4381/2024 and other connected matters, involving identical controversy, wherein, services of the petitioners were terminated, held as under: “4. Upon a considered perusal of the record, the following germane stipulations have come to light, namely:- 4.1 That the petitioners were appointed as contractual employees. 4.2 That the petitioners have categorically failed to place on record any appointment letter issued in favour of the petitioners by the respondent-JDA, exhibiting the terms and conditions of their engagement etc. 4.3 That the petitioner is merely a third-party and alien to the contract which was primarily entered into between the respondent-JDA and respondent no.3-Contractor, which had engaged the services of the petitioners. 4.4 That privity of contract subsisted only between the respondent-JDA and the concerned placement agency/contractor(respondent no.3). 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K.K. Suresh and Anr. vs. Food Corporation of India reported in AIR 2018 SC 3905, has categorically held that contractual engagement does not create a vested right of employment in favour of the workers, [2025:RJ-JP:19270] (3 of 4) [CW-5776/2025] engaged through a placement agency. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced herein- under:- “In the first place, the Appellants failed to adduce any evidence to prove existence 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.” 7. Accordingly, in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in K. K. Suresh (supra) and Ganesh Digamber Jhambhrundkar and Ors. (supra), this court is inclined to dismiss the instant petitions. 8. As a result, instant petitions are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.” In the instant case also, as already observed, petitioner has no privity of contract with the respondents. In the case of Rohitash Verma and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3540/2020 and other connected matters, wherein, the services of the petitioners were hired through a placement agency and they have prayed in the writ petition to restrain the respondents from [2025:RJ-JP:19270] (4 of 4) [CW-5776/2025] discontinuing their services, from replacing them with another set of contractual employees and to permit them to continue in service irrespective of the change of placement agency, this Court, vide its order date 24.11.2021, after examining a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as also of this Court, dismissed the writ petitions. In the backdrop of aforesaid precedential law and the undisputed factual scenario, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J YOGESH/60