[2025:RJ-JP:21825] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14835/2021 1. Ram Khilari S/o Kishanlal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Panchayat Nethla, Panchayat Samiti Malakheda, District Alwar. 2. Mohan Meena S/o Shri Battan Meena, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Panchayat Haldina, Panchayat Samiti Malakheda, District Alwar. 3. Manoj Kumar Joshi S/o Bhagwan Sahai, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Village Panchayat Malakheda, Panchayat Samiti Malakheda, District Alwar. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The District Collector, Alwar District Alwar. 3. Zila Parishad Alwar, Through Its Executive Officer. 4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Malakheda, District Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hem Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with Mr. Prateek Saxena Mr. K.S. Shekhawat, AGC with Mr. Aditya Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 23/05/2025 This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents not to discontinue the petitioners and keep them in service as security guard with a further prayer to engage them [2025:RJ-JP:21825] (2 of 8) [CW-14835/2021] directly by the State Officials without intervention of the placement agency and to pay them salary regularly. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners were engaged as security guard through a placement agency with no privity of contract with the official respondents. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were not hired by the placement agency through a fair and transparent procedure of selection inviting applications from the open market. Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon a judgement of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mooli Devi Choudhary and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others: MANU/RH/0725/2010, a Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Mitendra Singh Rathore and 121 Others. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others: 2013 (4) WLC (Raj.) 523 and a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Others in Civil Appeal No.... (arising out of SLP (C) No.5580/2024), would submit that even a person appointed through a placement agency has a right to continue till replaced by a regularly selected candidate. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed in terms prayed for. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, relying upon a judgement of this Court in the case of Rohitash Verma and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3540/2020 which was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others: D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1040/2021 as also a co-ordinate Bench judgement of this [2025:RJ-JP:21825] (3 of 8) [CW-14835/2021] Court in the case of Amita Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4381/2024 and other connected matters, would submit that a contractual employee engaged through a placement agency having no privity of contract with the official respondents has no right to seek continuation in service through the writ of mandamus. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. In view of the undisputed facts that the petitioners have been engaged through a placement agency having no privity of contract with the official respondents and they were not selected and appointed by the placement agency through a fair and transparent process, no further fact is required to be referred for decision of the controversy involved in the matter. The only issue remains to be examined is as to right of the petitioners to seek a writ of mandamus against the official respondents for their continuation in service and other ancillary benefits. This Court has, in the case of Rohitash Verma and Others (supra), involving identical controversy, after scanning a catena of precedential law of this Court as also of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as under:- "A panoramic view of the aforesaid judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also of this Court makes the position clear that a contractual employee appointed without facing a fair/transparent mode of selection, has no right to continue and the principle that no contractual employee can be replaced by another contractual employee, does not come to his rescue. [2025:RJ-JP:21825] (4 of 8) [CW-14835/2021] Indisputably, in the case in hand, the petitioners were hired by the placement agency without following any such fair/transparent procedure of selection and hence, they have no right to continue in service." The aforesaid judgement has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court by its judgement dated 20.12.2021 while dismissing D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1040//2021: Rakesh Kumar and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others preferred thereagainst in following terms:- "This quite apart, there was clear agreement between the Government and the service provider which was essentially for providing the workforce for implementing the scheme. The entire responsibility of providing the workforce was on the service provider. The agreement clearly envisaged that upon completion of the tenure of the contract the workforce provided by the service provider would be withdrawn. In clear terms thus there was no privity of contract between Government and the petitioners. This is not a case of engagement of the employees by the Government on contractual basis. The contract was between the Government and the service provider and if at all it may be an understanding between the service provider and the petitioners. In any case, the engagement cannot be seen as engagement of the petitioners by the Government on contractual basis. Any other view would make the task of the service provider wholly redundant and would also amount to overriding the agreement between the Government and the service provider. The general principle therefore that [2025:RJ-JP:21825] (5 of 8) [CW-14835/2021] one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by the another set of contractual employees as long as the work lasts cannot be applied in the present case. In the result all the appeals are dismissed. Pending application if any also stand disposed of." A co-ordinate Bench 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, relying upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.K. Suresh and Another Vs. Union of India: AIR 2018 Supreme Court 3095, held that the persons appointed through placement agency with no privity of contract with the official respondents could not claim any right to continue and their termination from services was held to be valid. The D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.326/2024: Amita Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and other connected matters preferred against the aforesaid judgement came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgement dated 20.05.2024 holding that in absence of any master servant relationship between the appellants and the respondent-JDA, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, in the backdrop of aforesaid precedential law, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioners are not entitled to seek a writ of mandamus against the official respondent, in absence of any privity of contract in between them, to keep them engaged in contractual services without intervention of the placement agency. [2025:RJ-JP:21825] (6 of 8) [CW-14835/2021] The judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are of no help to them. In the case of Mitendra Singh Rathore and 121 others (supra), a Division Bench of this Court was considering the validity of proviso second to Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 which provided for grant of bonus marks for appointment of the post of LDC on the basis of experience on the specified post but the persons employed through placement agencies were excluded from the purview of this benefit. Holding that the classification carved out under the relevant rule had no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved, the persons employed through the placement agency were also held entitled for grant of bonus marks based on their experience. However, no such situation obtains in the instant case wherein, the persons appointed through placement agency are claiming a right of continuance in service. In the case of Jaggo (supra), the question involved was of regularization of the appellants who were engaged by the Central Water Commission as Safaiwala and Khalasi/Mali. Holding that the work being discharged by them was of perennial nature, they have rendered sufficiently long service and the individuals with lesser tenure or comparable rolls were regularised by the respondents, a direction was issued for their regularization. The facts of the case do not reveal that the appellants therein were employed through placement agency; rather, were appointed directly by the official respondents which is not the case herein. In case of Mooli Devi Choudhary & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors., MANU/RH/0725/2010: 2010 (4) WLC (Raj.) 334, a [2025:RJ-JP:21825] (7 of 8) [CW-14835/2021] coordinate bench of this Court held the engagement of petitioners-teachers under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, a project launched by the Government of India for achievement of Universalization of Elementary Education within the time frame as mandated by the 86th Amendment to the Constitution and/or Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidhyalaya, the scheme for setting up residential school at Upper Primary School for girls belonging predominantly to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes/OBC and minority communities respectively, through placement agency to be unconstitutional and refused to acknowledge such teachers as the employees of the private placement agencies in absence of any enactment by the State Government to engage such employees through the private placement agency. It was further held that employment of the teachers is part of the sovereign function of the State Government/Central Government of imparting education and such sovereign function including employment of the teachers imparting education could not be delegated to the private placement agency. This case is clearly distinguishable. Herein, the petitioners have been employed through placement agency as security guard by the concerned Gram Panchayat which, by no stretch of imagination, can be reckoned as a part of the sovereign function of the State. Further, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in the case of Saitan Ram and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others: MANU/RH/0754/2016, while dealing with the cases wherein, services of the petitioners working as Class IV Employee and Computer Operator in the Government Colleges through placement agency were terminated, distinguishing the judgement [2025:RJ-JP:21825] (8 of 8) [CW-14835/2021] in the case of Mooli Devi Choudhary (supra), held that in absence of privity of contract in between the petitioners and the State, no interference was warranted. Resultantly, the writ petitions were dismissed. Another co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Madan Lal Meena and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9828/2012 and another connected matter involving identical controversy, vide its order dated 05.05.2015, after referring to the judgement of this Court in the case of Mooli Devi Choudhary and Others (supra), held that no right is accrued to the petitioners to remain in service because their services were utilised through placement agency and this Court has passed an order not to provide appointment through placement agency in Mooli Devi's case. It was further held that in absence of any appointment order issued by the Government in favour of the petitioners, no direction could be issued to the State to continue their services in respective post in a scheme. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J PRAGATI/80