[2025:RJ-JP:2249] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13023/2011 1. Madan Singh Hada S/o Shri Nathu Singh Hada, Subhash Nagar Infront Of Gate No. 6 Of Navjevan Colony, Nainwa Road, Bundi Raj. 2. Surendra Singh Hada S/o Raghuraj Singh, Jhala House, Nainwa Road Choraha, Bundi Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Managing Director, R.S.R.T.C., H.Q., Parivahan Marg, Jaipur 2. Executive Engineer Personel R.s.r.t.c., H.q., Parivahan Marg, Jaipur 3. General Manger R.S.R.T.C., H.q., Parivahan Marg, Jaipur 4. Indian Ex-Serviceman Welfare Co-Operative Society Ltd., Plot No. 22-K-5 Scheme, Sirsi Road, Khatipura, Jaipur Through Secretary 5. Kargil Bhutpurva Sainik Suraksha Sahakari Samiti Head Office Es-16, Kumbha Circle, Azad Nagar, Bhilwara Raj. Through Its Secretary ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Pareek for Mr. Deepak Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yash Joshi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 16/01/2025 1. From record, it appears that petitioners have not ensured service of notice upon respondent No.4, even requisite PF & Notice have not been filed. Hence, instant writ petition has been considered on merits and after hearing counsel, appearing for respondents No.1 to 3. 2. It appears that both petitioners filed instant writ petition, seeking directions against respondents to reinstate them on the [2025:RJ-JP:2249] (2 of 4) [CW-13023/2011] post of Security Guard, on contractual basis, in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short "RSRTC") and in that respect, a letter dated 19.08.2011 issued by the Kargil Bhutpurva Sainik Suraksha Sahakari Samiti (respondent No.5 herein) to respondent Nos.1 to 3, in order to provide civil security guards on contractual basis, has been put to challenge. 3. Counsel, appearing for respondents No.1 to 3, has pointed out that the petitioners were not directly engaged by the RSRTC on contractual basis and there is no relationship of employee- employer between petitioners and respondents-RSRTC. It has been pointed out that since petitioners were engaged through a private welfare society, they cannot claim their engagement directly with the RSRTC. Hence, it has been urged that in such circumstances, the relief prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. From perusal of pleadings of the writ petition and documents available on record, this Court finds that it is an admitted case of petitioners that they were engaged on contractual basis by the Indian Ex-Serviceman Welfare Co-Operative Society Ltd. (respondent No.4 herein), a private placement agency, and not directly by the RSRTC. The relief prayed for by the petitioners in the instant writ petition, at the most survives against respondent No.4, a private placement agency. Since the private placement agency does not fall within the definition of "State Instrumentality", therefore, the grievance of petitioners, is not amenable to be considered within the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [2025:RJ-JP:2249] (3 of 4) [CW-13023/2011] 5. The ratio decidendi expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. Piyush Kant Sharma [AIR 2020 SC 5036], applies to the facts of the present case. In that case, the petitioner-Piyush Kant Sharma was appointed as Computer Operator on contractual basis in the Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation (for short, "RSRDCC") through one M/s. Sahara Supreme Security Service, Jaipur. Petitioner, after rendering three years of service, claimed for grant of regular pay scale and regularization of his services by the RSRDCC and filed a writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the RSRDCC issued a fresh E-tender for hiring of the Computer Operators and the contract was awarded to the another placement agency, namely, M/s. Rakshak Security (P) Ltd. for providing Computer Operators in the RSRDCC for a period of 12 months. The High Court, passed interim order of injunction, restraining the RSRDCC from appointing new set of contractual employees as Computer Operators in place of writ petitioners. That interim order was challenged by the RSRDCC before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed and set aside the interim order and observed that the High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the facts that there was no employer- employee relationship between the writ petitioners and the RSRDCC, since the writ petitioners were the employees of M/s. Sahara Supreme Security Service, Jaipur, who supplied the [2025:RJ-JP:2249] (4 of 4) [CW-13023/2011] services of writ petitioners in the RSRDCC as Computer Operator on contractual basis. 6. In the case at hand, the petitioners admit that their engagement with the respondents-RSRTC, is through placement agency, on contractual basis, hence, the petitioners are neither appointed employee of the respondents-RSRTC, nor have any direct relationship of employee-employer with the State. 7. In view of above, this Court is not inclined to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant any relief prayed by the petitioners in this writ petition. 8. As a result, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed. 9. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/52