[2025:RJ-JP:48037] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15025/2015 1. Pradeep Sharma, aged about 27 years, son of Shri Ramswaroop Sharma, resident of Amritpuri Colony, Hindoncity, District Karauli (Raj.). 2. Girish Kumar S/o Shri Kishan Singh, aged about 39 years, R/o A-221, Jain Vatika, Behind Choki Dhani, Vatika Road, 12 Miles, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.). 3. Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Surja Ram, aged about 27 years, R/o 273-Dhani Mahetawali, Ward No.10, Village Tapipaliya via Ringus, Tehsil Shri Madhopur, District Sikar (Raj.). 4. Aakash Vijay S/o Shri Kailash Vijay, aged about 24 years, R/o 102-Ganesh Colony, Chandni Chowk, Jhotwara Jaipur (Raj.). 5. Pradhuman Sharma S/o Shri Shyam Sundar Sharma, aged about 26 years, R/o Amritpuri Colony, Hindoncity, District Karauli (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Medical & Health, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Commissioner Food Safety and Director (Public Health), Department of Medical & Health, Government of Rajasthan, Directorate, Jaipur. 3. Additional Director (Rural Health) Medical & Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur. 4. Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jaipur-I, Department of Medical & Health, State of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 5. Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jaipur-II, Department of Medical & Health, State of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 6. Chief Medical & Health Officer, Department of Medical & Health, State of Rajasthan, Jhunjhunu. 7. Office Assistant cum Assistant Administration Officer, FSSA Section, Medical & Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13985/2015 1. Roshan Lal Gurjar son of Shri Dev Karan Gurjar, aged about 43 years, resident of Malpura Gate, Purani Tonk (Raj.). 2. Net Ram Kaswa son of Shri Hansraj Kaswa, aged about 32 years, resident of Village & Post Bogera, Tehsil Sardar Shahar, District Churu. [2025:RJ-JP:48037] (2 of 4) [CW-15025/2015] ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Medical & Health, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Commissioner Food Security and Director (Public Health), Department of Medical & Health, Government of Rajasthan, Directorate, Jaipur. 3. The Chief Medical & Health Officer, Tonk, Department of Medical & Health, State of Rajasthan, Tonk. 4. The Chief Medical & Health Officer, Churu, Department of Medical & Health, State of Rajasthan, Churu. 5. Additional Director (Rural Health) Medical and Health Services, Swasthay Bhawan, Jaipur. 6. Office Assistant cum Assistant Administration Officer, FSSA, Section, Medical and Health Services, Swasthay Bhawan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sweekriti Sharma for Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 26/11/2025 1. By filing these two writ petitions, the petitioners therein have made following prayer:- “(i) That the Hon’ble Court may kindly call for the record of the case and after examining the same be pleased to accept and allow the writ petition and by appropriate writ, order or direction, may kindly quash and set aside the order dated 11.09.2015 (Annexure-11) and declare the action of the respondents of closing the Mobile Laboratories be illegal and arbitrary. (ii) That the Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the respondents to continue the Mobile Laboratories and allow the petitioners to continue on the post of Spot Analyst and Lab Technicians with all benefits. (iii) Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and [2025:RJ-JP:48037] (3 of 4) [CW-15025/2015] circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the appellant. (iv) That the cost may kindly be quantified in the favour of the petitioner.” 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not want to press the prayer No.(i) as regards challenge to the order dated 11.09.2015. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Mobile Laboratories which were closed vide order dated 11.09.2015 and because of closing of these Mobile Laboratories, the services of the petitioners who were engaged on contract basis as Spot Analyst and Lab Technicians were put to an end. He further submits that these Mobile Laboratories have been revived in the year 2018 and therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to be re-engaged or continued in service. He also submits that it is basic principle of law that contractual employee may not be replaced by another set of contractual employee. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State submits that the petitioners were engaged on contract basis on the post of Spot Analyst and Lab Technicians to work at the Mobile Laboratories and since the Mobile Laboratories have already been closed vide order dated 11.09.2015, resulting into an end of the contract of engagement of the petitioners. 5. Since the Mobile Laboratories were closed, the petitioners cannot claim continuation of their services or re-engagement without following fresh engagement letter. 6. Considered the submissions made at bar ans also perused the material made available on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were engaged on the post of Spot Analyst and Lab Technicians to work at Mobile [2025:RJ-JP:48037] (4 of 4) [CW-15025/2015] Laboratories on a fix remuneration on contract basis. Vide order dated 11.09.2015, the operation of the Mobile Laboratories was completely closed and since the petitioners were engaged on contract basis to work at those Mobile Laboratories, their services were also put to an end as no work for them remains with the respondent-authorities. 8. Since the project under which the petitioners were engaged has already come to an end vide order dated 11.09.2015, continuation of the petitioners for the work they were engaged cannot be accepted. It was also submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the Mobile Laboratories have been revived in the year 2018, therefore, they may be re-engaged. On consideration of the material placed on record, it is borne out that after revival of the Mobile Laboratories, some regularly selected employees of the SMS Hospital have been engaged to run those Mobile Laboratories. 9. Taking into consideration overall facts, the Court finds no merit in the claim of the petitioners, therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are dismissed being devoid of merit. 11. Since the main petitions are dismissed, the stay application as well as pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /75-76