Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18069 (RAJ)

MAHAVEER PRASAD NAGAR S/O PERMANAND v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/7250/2025 · 2025-05-26

Mahendar Kumar Goyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:22130] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7250/2025 Mahaveer Prasad Nagar S/o Permanand, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Talaab Ohalla, Iklera, 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) : None Present For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 26/05/2025 None appears for the petitioner even in second round. Under challenge in the writ petition is the order dated 19.11.2024 whereby, the placement agency was required to send other nursing staff in place of staff already engaged including the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:22130] (2 of 2) [CW-7250/2025] The relevant facts in brief, as revealed from the memo of writ petition, are that the petitioner was engaged as a nursing employee through a placement agency. This Court has, in the case of Ram Khiladi and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14835/2021 involving identical controversy, vide order dated 23.05.2025, held that the persons appointed through a placement agency have no right to seek writ of mandamus against the official respondents to continue them in service. In the backdrop of aforesaid precedential law, this writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J PRAGATI/s-338