[2026:RJ-JP:4131] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9892/2018 Purba Ram S/o Rugha Ram Khileri, Age 33 years, Village Sukhwasi, PO Sukhwasi, Nagaur, Rajasthan Pin 341001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur 2. The Chief Manager, Nagaur Depot, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Nagaur Rajasthan ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5500/2011 1. Omprakash Sharma Son Of Shri Ram Kishor Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Plot No.12, Jda Colony, Sawai Gator, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Raj. 2. Ramchandra Kumawat Son Of Shri Govind Ram Kumawat, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of A-34, Ashok Vihar, New Sanganer Road, Manyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Raj. 3. Radheshyam Sharma Son Of Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of 90-A, Ganesh Nager, Sheopur, Sanganer, Jaipur, Raj. 4. Narayan Mathur Son Of Late Shri Devi Shankar Mathur, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Raigaro Ka Mohalla, Sheopur, Sanganer, Jaipur, Raj. 5. Dasrath Singh Son Of Shri Shayam Singh, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Sanjay Nagar, Dcm, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Raj. 6. Mahendra Lal Son Of Shri Kishan Lal, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of House No. A-95, Vikas Nagar, Chahal Chowk, Sri Ganganagar, Raj. 7. Hansraj Verma Son Of Shri Mangal Chand, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Purani Abadi, Near Sani Mandir, Ward No.14, Sri Ganganagar, Raj. 8. Jitendra Singh Son Of Shri Ram Singh, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Chak 3-E Choti Gali No.7, Ssb Road, Sri [2026:RJ-JP:4131] (2 of 8) [CW-9892/2018] Ganganagar, Raj. 9. Vijay Singh Son Of Shri Chagan Singh, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Chak 3-E Choti Gali No.7, Ssb Road, Sri Ganganagar, Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Pariwahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. The Secretary, Service Selection Board, Office At Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Pariwahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 3. The Chief Manager, Sanganer Depot, Rsrtc, Sanganer, District Jaipur, Raj. 4. The Chief Manager, Central Work Shop, Rsrtc, Jaipur, Raj. 5. The Chief Manager, Sri Ganganagar Depot, Rsrtc, Sri Ganganagar, Raj. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6235/2011 1. Rajendra Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Kishan Lal Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Neem Ka Pada, Tehsil And Distt.- Dausa. 2. Kailash Chand Sharma S/o Shri Roopnarayan Sharma, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Mahuwa, Tehsil Mahuwa, District Dausa. 3. Rajendra Prasad Meena S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Sitapura, Tehsil And District Dausa. 4. Babu Lal Sharma S/o Shri Ramji Lal Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Neem Ka Pada, Tehsil And Distt. Dausa. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Pariwahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. The Secretary, Service Selection Board, Office At Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Pariwahan Marg, Chomu [2026:RJ-JP:4131] (3 of 8) [CW-9892/2018] House, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 3. The Chief Manager, Dausa Depot, Rsrtc, Dausa Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Neerja Khana For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Sheoran with Mr. Brajesh Kumar Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 27/01/2026 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9892/2018 is filed with following prayer:- “i. To direct the respondents corporation to continue the services of the petitioners with all back wages on its original position and to set aside the order dated 14.02.2011 pursuant to Court’s stay order dated 10.10.2011. ii. To issue directions to decide his appeal meanwhile filed by him in his department. iii. To issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. To allow the cost of this writ petition in favour of the petitioner.” 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5500/2011 is filed with following prayer:- “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and be further pleased to quash the orders Annexure-4&5 dated 4.2.2011 and 1.4.2011 and direct the respondent Corporation to take into consideration the matter of regularization of the services of the petitioners. Any other appropriate directions which are found in the facts and circumstances of the case thereby regularizing the services of the petitioners and not to discriminate in the matters of employment be issued. [2026:RJ-JP:4131] (4 of 8) [CW-9892/2018] Any other appropriate writ, order or directions, which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioners.” 3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6235/2011 is filed with following prayer:- “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and be further pleased to quash the orders Anneuxre-6 (04-02-2011) and annexure-7 dated (01-04-2011) and direct the respondent Corporation to regulize the services of the petitioners. Any other appropriate writ, order or directions, which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioners.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised herein has already considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in case of Abhay Rai Singh and Ors. Vs. RSRTC & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6884/2011 decided on 10.10.2011 in bunch of petitions. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have no objection in case of disposal of these writ petitions on basis of ratio laid down in case of Abhay Rai Singh and Ors. Vs. RSRTC & Ors. (supra). 6. Having considered submissions and also the material placed on record. 7. A Co-ordinate Bench while considering the issue involving common question in bunch of petitions have observed as under:- “The petitioners are those who have been engaged as Security Guards on contract basis [2026:RJ-JP:4131] (5 of 8) [CW-9892/2018] through an agency. The first question for consideration is as to whether they are having any relationship with the respondent Corporation. For the aforesaid purpose, the definition of 'workmen as provided under the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Act would be relevant and is thus quoted hereunder:- "(s) "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry by an employer or by a contractor in relation to the execution of his contract with such employer to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, but does not include any such person- (i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957; or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or (ill) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws, wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the dutles attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature." Perusal of the definition aforesaid shows that [2026:RJ-JP:4131] (6 of 8) [CW-9892/2018] even a person engaged through the contractor falls within the definition of 'workmen’. In view of the above, the respondent Corporation becomes principal employer of the petitioners even if they have been engaged by an agency. This is more so when the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act applies to the respondent Corporation and otherwise a person engaged to undertake regular work of an establishment gets direct relation with the principal employer where he is working. So far as the second plea raised by learned counsel for respondent Corporation is concerned, if a circular was issued by the State Government, then it can be applied for the future engagement of the fresh hands and not for the purpose of replacement of one set of contractual employees by another. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Piara Singh reported in 1992 (4) SCC 118, one set of contractual/temporary employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual/temporary employees. Para 45 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted thus: 45. The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an adhoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an adhoc/temporary employee by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an adhoc/temporary employee. 46. Secondly, an adhoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by [2026:RJ-JP:4131] (7 of 8) [CW-9892/2018] another adhoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority." Herein, replacement of the petitioners is for the reason that they are civilians and not the ex- service personnel, however, aforesaid cannot be taken as a ground to replace them by another set of contractual employees. The post of Security Guard is not reserved entirely for the ex-service personnel rather it cannot be done being in violation of the Article 16 of the Constitution of India where public employment cannot be reserved entirely based on one category. Even as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court, reservation of the posts cannot be beyond 50% even if social reservation is to be provided. In the present matter, the respondents want to fill up the post of Security Guard by ex-service personnel whereas aforesaid is not the qualification Under the rules: The fact would have been different if Rules provide qualification that for appointment on the post of Security Guards, one should have been the ex-service personnel. In the light of the aforesaid background, the action of the respondent Corporation is not proper to replace one set of contractual employees by another. This is more so when letter dated 4.2.2011 directs placement agency to replace the petitioners by ex-service personnel and provide the Security Guard accordingly. Since petitioners are continuing in service pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the respondents are direct not to replace them by another set of contractual employees, however, they would be free to implement the order dated 4.2.2011 and subsequent orders dated 1.4.2011 to engage ex-service personnel as a fresh hands for any new vacancy but not by replacing the present petitioners who are working in the respondent Corporation for the last many years. [2026:RJ-JP:4131] (8 of 8) [CW-9892/2018] With the aforesaid direction and clarification, all the writ petitions so as the stay applications are disposed of.” 8. Having considered aforesaid, these writ petitions are disposed on same terms as laid down in case of Abhay Rai Singh and Ors. Vs. RSRTC & Ors. (supra) and bunch of petitions by a Co-ordinate Bench. 9. Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/101 to 103