[2026:RJ-JP:11954] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17798/2019 1. Surendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 12/17-C, Behind Madrasi Baba Ki Bagichi, Kagdiwara, Brahmpuri, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. Kushal Katara S/o Shri Hare Krishn Katara, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Plot No. 361, Gautam Path, Ramnagar, Sodala, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 3. Smt. Sanju Dubey W/o Shri Mahesh Chand Dubey, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Keshavpura, Sector-4, Kota (Rajasthan). 4. Smt. Ruchi Gautam W/o Shri Lokesh Gautam, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Plot 40, Kotadi, Goverdhanpura, Kota, (Rajasthan). 5. Naresh Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Satya Narayan Joshi, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Chandawato Ka Bas, Sojat City, Pali (Rajasthan) 6. Smt. Hemlata Rathore W/o Shri Girdhar Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Plot No. 18, Gautam Path, Ramnagar, Sodala, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 7. Smt. Rekha Shukla W/o Shri Manoj Tiwari, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 272/32, Hanuman Gali, Bhantipura, Dholpur (Rajasthan). 8. Smt. Arti Mishra W/o Shri Shyam Dixit, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Plot No. E-51, Jawahar Nagar, Bharatpur (Rajasthan). 9. Laxmikant Sain S/o Jairam Sain, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ward No. 27, Iti Road, Badabas, Kotputli, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 10. Smt. Kusum Sharma W/o Shri Mishri Lal, Aged About 46 Years, Near Swastic Cinema, Gali No.2, Kankroli, Rajsamand (Rajasthan). 11. Navneet Khateek S/o Shri Mohan Lal Khateek, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Khutaria, Tehsil Nathdwara, Rajsamand (Rajasthan). 12. Smt. Manohar Kunwar Dewda W/o Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Sameshwar Road, Sadalpur, Sirohi (Rajasthan) [2026:RJ-JP:11954] (2 of 8) [CW-17798/2019] 13. Smt. Manorama Sharma W/o Shri Govind Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vyas Colony, Lalsot Road, Dausa (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Department Cum Managing Director National Health Mission, Rajasthan. 2. Mission Director, National Health Mission, Rajasthan, Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare, Swasthaya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 3. Project Director, National Health Mission (Nhm), Rajasthan State Health Society, Swasthaya Bhawan, Tilak Nagar, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.P. Sharma with Ms. Santosh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Ms. Sweekriti Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 07/01/2026 1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioners with following prayer: "(i). by an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the full salary and other benefits petitioners directly without to involve any mediator i.e. placement agencies/N.G.O., as envisaged by the Central Government for their posts. [2026:RJ-JP:11954] (3 of 8) [CW-17798/2019] ii). by an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents be directed to not replace the petitioners with the other set of contractual employees." 2. During course of submissions, it has been apprised to the Court that petitioner No. 2 Kushal Katara S/o Shri Hare Krishn Katara, petitioner No.3 Smt. Sanju Dubey W/o Shri Mahesh Chand Dubey, petitioner No. 4 Smt. Ruchi Gautam W/o Shri Lokesh Gautam, petitioner No. 6 Smt. Hemlata Rathore W/o Shri Girdhar Singh, petitioner No. 8 Smt. Arti Mishra W/o Shri Shyam Dixit and petitioner No. 9 Laxmikant Sain S/o Jairam Sain have left their job during pendency of petition and they are not working under the scheme. Learned counsel for respondent has also apprised the court that petitioner No.10 Kusum Sharma and petitioner No. 11 Navneet Khateek were engaged directly under a contract. Considering aforesaid the cause pleaded with regard to petitioner Nos. 2 Kushal Katara S/o Shri Hare Krishn Katara, petitioner No.3 Smt. Sanju Dubey W/o Shri Mahesh Chand Dubey, petitioner No. 4 Smt. Ruchi Gautam W/o Shri Lokesh Gautam, petitioner No. 6 Smt. Hemlata Rathore W/o Shri Girdhar Singh, petitioner No. 8 Smt. Arti Mishra W/o Shri Shyam Dixit, petitioner No. 9 Laxmikant Sain S/o Jairam Sain is extinguished and petition is disposed of qua these petitioners. Now we are considering petition with regard to petitioner Nos. 1 Surendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, petitioner No. 5 Naresh Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Satya Narayan Joshi, petitioner No. 7 Smt. Rekha [2026:RJ-JP:11954] (4 of 8) [CW-17798/2019] Shukla W/o Shri Manoj Tiwari, petitioner No. 12 Smt. Manohar Kunwar Dewda W/o Shri Mahendra Singh and petitioner No. 13 Smt. Manorama Sharma W/o Shri Govind Sharma. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while placing reliance upon the judgment dated 19.01.2021 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7273/2020 Jai Prakash Ghanchi and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. by a Coordinate Bench at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur, submitted that under the National Health Mission (NHM) the petitioners were engaged on the post of RMNCH/Family Planning Counselor, but contrary to the directions, the petitioners were engaged through a human resource service provider. He also submitted that said engagement has issued certain directions for direct engagement through Rajasthan Medical Relief Society (RMRS) as per Government order dated 29.02.2020. 4. He further placed reliance upon the judgments in the cases of Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari S. Ltd. vs. Vinod Kumar Sharma (Dead) by LRs, reported in AIR 2011 SC 3546, and Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., reported as 2024 INSC 1034, and submitted that to avoid liability under various labour statutes, employers often resort to subterfuge by showing that employees are actually employees of a contractor. He also submitted that labour statutes are meant to protect the interest of workmen, but contrary to the object behind enactment of these statutes, [2026:RJ-JP:11954] (5 of 8) [CW-17798/2019] the services of the petitioners were engaged through a service provider. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. He submitted that the services of the petitioners were engaged through an agency and do not have any direct nexus with the respondents. He further placed reliance upon the judgment dated 06.12.2017 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1017/2017, State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Kumar Gujar & Ors., and submitted that while considering the judgment in case of Surendra Kumar Gujar vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2017 (2) RLW 1055 (Raj.), the Division Bench set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which had directed to lay down a procedure and constitute a nodal agency for conducting examinations for hiring employees on contract basis. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record along with the judgments referred by learned counsel for parties. 7. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were engaged under the National Health Mission (NHM), a scheme sponsored by the Central Government and implemented through the State Government. The petitioners were engaged through a human resource service provider; however, due to difficulties faced by contractual employees engaged through agencies, the Government took a decision on 01.03.2016 to engage contractual employees directly and not through any agency. [2026:RJ-JP:11954] (6 of 8) [CW-17798/2019] 8. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking implementation of the said directions. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents candidly admitted that petitioner Nos. 10 and 11 were directly given appointment on contract pursuant to directions dated 01.03.2016 issued by the Directorate. Learned counsel further referred to subsequent directions dated 21.05.2020 and 11.06.2021, whereby engagement through RMRS was prohibited. 9. The issue raised herein clearly indicates that the direction dated 01.03.2016 was implemented with regard to two of the petitioners, but the remaining petitioners were not considered pursuant to the said direction, meaning thereby that a discriminatory practice was adopted by the respondents, which is evident from the reply submitted by them. 10. In the case of Jai Prakash Ghanchi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), a Coordinate Bench at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur, while considering the judgment dated 20.03.2017 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 953/2017 (Pankaj Kumar Upadhyay vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), wherein services of such individuals were directed to be continued till requirement subsists, and also considering the circular, whereby direct contractual engagement through Rajasthan Medical Relief Society (RMRS) was permitted, allowed the writ petition. 11. In the case of Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari S. Ltd. vs. Vinod Kumar Sharma (Dead) by LRs (supra), [2026:RJ-JP:11954] (7 of 8) [CW-17798/2019] Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the growing practice of employers engaging workers through agencies so as to subvert the provisions of labour laws. In the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra), after considering the judgment in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, it has been held that the Government and its instrumentalities should lead by example in providing fair and equitable employment. 12. In the case of Surendra Kumar Gujar (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court deprecated the practice of engagement through service agencies and issued certain directions; however, the said judgment was set aside by the Division Bench in State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Kumar Gujar & Ors. (supra), and the matter was remanded back. 13. Having taken note of the discriminatory practice and also the prevalent circular at the time of engagement of the petitioners, it appears that the respondents have not considered the case of the remaining petitioners. Thus, selective consideration amounts to discrimination and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 14. Accordingly Writ Petition preferred by petitioner No. 1 Surendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, petitioner No. 5 Naresh Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Satya Narayan Joshi, petitioner No. 7 Smt. Rekha Shukla W/o Shri Manoj Tiwari, petitioner No. 12 Smt. Manohar Kunwar Dewda W/o Shri Mahendra Singh and petitioner No. 13 Smt. Manorama Sharma W/o [2026:RJ-JP:11954] (8 of 8) [CW-17798/2019] Shri Govind Sharma are hereby allowed, and the respondents-are directed to engage these petitioners directly on contractual basis in accordance with the directions dated 01.03.2016 issued by the Directorate. Needless to say, the services of these petitioners shall be renewed periodically till the requirement subsists and their services are found satisfactory or till regular appointment is made. 15. The writ petitions of petitioner No No. 2, Kushal Katara S/o Shri Hare Krishn Katara, petitioner No.3 Smt. Sanju Dubey W/o Shri Mahesh Chand Dubey, petitioner No. 4 Smt. Ruchi Gautam W/o Shri Lokesh Gautam, petitioner No. 6 Smt. Hemlata Rathore W/o Shri Girdhar Singh, petitioner No. 8 Smt. Arti Mishra W/o Shri Shyam Dixit, petitioner No. 9 Laxmikant Sain S/o Jairam Sain petitioner No.10 Kusum Sharma and petitioner No. 11 Navneet Khateek are hereby dismissed, and they are not entitled for any relief from this Court. 16. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /16