[2026:RJ-JP:22322] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6091/2026 Abdul Razzaq Son Of Shri Subhan Khan, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Musalmano Ka Mohalla, Udaipuria, Gram Panchayat, Nanan Teh. Dudu District-Jaipur, Rajasthan 303008 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Dudu (Dudu) Rajasthan 2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Dudu, Jaipur Rajasthan 3. Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 4. Secretary, Ex-Servicemen Multistate Welfare Cooperative Society, Vidyadhar Nagar, Sector-4, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Gupta for Mr. M.F. Baig For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 26/05/2026 1. Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking direction against the respondents to reinstate his services as Gardener in Panchayat Samiti, Dudu and set aside the order dated 21.01.2026 so also to regularize his services and to pay regular salary and other service benefits. 2. Admittedly, services of petitioner as Gardener to maintain the greenery/garden located at Panchayat Samiti, Dudu were engaged through Placement Agency viz., Ex-Servicemen Multistate [2026:RJ-JP:22322] (2 of 4) [CW-6091/2026] Welfare Cooperative Society, which is well evident by the order of appointment dated 09.10.2024. This engagement, which was merely contractual and temporary, does not create any direct relationship of “employer and employee” between the respondents-State Authorities of Panchayat Samiti, Dudu and petitioner. 3. Further, the order of termination dated 21.01.2026 also reveals that the services of petitioner have been repatriated to the Placement Agency viz., Ex-Servicemen Multistate Welfare Cooperative Society. This also show that petitioner was indeed engaged by the Placement Agency and not by the respondents- State Authorities, hence, it is open for petitioner to claim his salary/dues, if any, from the Placement Agency. 4. In absence of establishing any relationship of “employee or employer” between the petitioner and the respondent-States Authorities, no relief prayed for in the writ petition can be granted in his favour against the respondents-State Authorities. As far as the respondent No.4-Placement Agency, Ex-Servicemen Multistate Welfare Cooperative Society is concerned, same does not fall within the ambit of State and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this High Court. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Ltd. v. Piyush Kant Sharma and Ors. [(2021) 12 SCC 411], observed as under:- “Having heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in passing such an interim order restraining the Appellant Corporation from appointing new set of contractual employees in place of [2026:RJ-JP:22322] (3 of 4) [CW-6091/2026] original writ Petitioners. No reasons, whatsoever have been assigned by the High Court while passing the impugned interim order. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that according to the Appellant Corporation, there was no regular sanctioned post of Computer Operator in the Appellant Corporation and that there was no employer-employee relationship between the original writ Petitioner and the Appellant Corporation and that the original writ Petitioner was an employee appointed by the contractor on contractual basis and worked with the Appellant Corporation on contractual basis. As the writ petition is pending before the High Court, we refrain ourselves from making any further observations on merits. However, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, the High Court ought not to have passed such an interim order. Under the circumstances, the impugned interim order passed by the High Court requires to be quashed and set aside.” (emphasis supplied) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K.K. Suresh & Anr. Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors. [(2018) 17 SCC 641], has held as under:- “7. In the first place, the Appellants failed to adduce any evidence to prove existence of any relationship between them and the FCI; Second, when the documents on record showed that the appellants were appointed by the FCI Head Load Workers Co-Operative Society but not by the FCI then obviously the remedy of the Appellants, if at all, in relation to their any service dispute was against the said Society being their employer but not against the FCI; Third, the FCI was able to prove with the aid of evidence that the Appellants were in the employment of the said Society whereas the Appellants were not able to prove with the aid of any documents that they were appointed by the FCI and how and on what basis they claimed to be in the employment of the FCI except to make an averment in the writ petitions in that behalf. It was, in our opinion, not sufficient to grant any relief to the appellants.” (emphasis supplied) [2026:RJ-JP:22322] (4 of 4) [CW-6091/2026] 6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed. 7. All pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J GAURAV SHARMA/37