[2025:RJ-JP:22129] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1107/2025 Bharat Bhushan Sharma Son Of Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of 2/67, Rhb Colony, Infront Of The New Bus Stand, Tonk, District Tonk (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Panchay- atiraj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. District Collector Tonk, District Tonk (Raj.) 3. Director, S.b.m.g., Office Address First Floor, Chopal Vishranti Grah, Badodiya Basti (Near Jaipur Junction), Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Tonk (Raj.) 5. District Project Co-Ordinator, S.b.m.g., Zila Parishad Tonk (Raj.) 6. Block Development Officer, Uniyara (Aligarh), Panchayat Samiti Uniyara (Aligarh), District Tonk (Raj.) 7. Proprietor, M/s. Genar Placement Service, A-132, Scheme No. 10, Alwar (Raj.) ----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 31.03.2024 passed by the respondents whereby, the placement agency has been informed that its contract to supply manpower was expiring on 31.03.2024 and thereafter, no payment would be [2025:RJ-JP:22129] (2 of 2) [CW-1107/2025] made to it. A further direction has also been issued not to supply the manpower thereafter. The relevant facts in brief, as revealed from the memo of writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed through the aforesaid placement agency and assailing the aforesaid order dated 31.03.2024, he seeks a direction to the respondents to continue him in service. This Court has, in the case of Ram Khi- ladi 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 a 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-336