[2026:RJ-JP:21308] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8838/2026 1. Vikas Shyogan S/o Shri Ramshi Ram Mina, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Naidoli, Post Ajabgarh, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar (Rajasthan). 2. Garvit Khandelwal S/o Shri Laxaman Khunteta, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Near Aradhana School, Behind Vivah Place, Gupteshwar, District Dausa (Rajasthan). 3. Kishan Parashar S/o Shri Ashok Parashar, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Rampuri, Colony Gupteshwar Road, District Dausa (Rajasthan). 4. Vijendra Kumar S/o Shri Fateh Chand, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 14, Shriram Nagar B-2, Khirni Fatak Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 5. Ravi Khatana S/o Shri Hamir Singh Khatana, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Gurjar Seemla, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa (Rajasthan) 6. Dharmal Yadav S/o Shri Ramjilal Yadav, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward No.12, Dhani Surali, Post Bagawas Ahiran, Teshil And District Kotputli Behror (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Principle Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Director, Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 4. Director, Mukhyamantri Nishulk Jaanch Yojana (Mnjy), Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 5. Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Dausa Rajasthan. 6. Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society, Through Its Member Secretary, Distt. Dausa, Rajasthan. 7. Green Line System Pvt. Ltd., Through Branch Head, Branch Office Opposite P.g. College, Agra Road, Dausa (Raj.) ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:21308] (2 of 4) [CW-8838/2026] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Buddhi Prakash Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 20/05/2026 1. Petitioners have filed this joint writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions against respondents for their engagement in service on the post of Assistant Radiographer under the Rajasthan Medical Relief Society and have also questioned the order dated 28.03.2026 (Annx.3), whereunder it was held that the contract with placement agency M/s. Green Line Systems Pvt. Ltd. has come to an end due to expiry of the contractual period. 2. Having heard counsel for petitioners and from the record, it is apparent and not in dispute that petitioners were never engaged by the respondents State Authorities under the Rajasthan Medical Relief Society nor petitioners have enclosed any appointment order in their favour issued by the Rajasthan Medical Relief Society. It is an admitted case of petitioners that they were engaged by the placement agency M/s. Green Line Systems Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.7 herein) and then their services were provided at the Chief Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Dausa vide letters dated 01.05.2025, 28.02.2025, 27.02.2026, 29.01.2026, etc. Further, it has also been revealed that the services of petitioners were provided through placement agency, pursuant to the contract entered into between respondent- Rajasthan Medical Relief Society and the placement agency for a limited period, which has expired on 12.12.2025. In the impugned order dated 28.03.2026, it has been mentioned that since the [2026:RJ-JP:21308] (3 of 4) [CW-8838/2026] contractual period of placement agency is expired w.e.f. 12.12.2025, hence, the persons provided by that placement agency may be withdrawn. 3. 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 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 [2026:RJ-JP:21308] (4 of 4) [CW-8838/2026] 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) 4. Following the legal dictum, expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above two judgments, and in view of aforesaid factual matrix, since there is no privity of contract between the petitioners and the respondent-State Authorities, rather the petitioners have contract with the placement agency (respondent No.7 herein), no relief as prayed for by the petitioners against the respondent State Authorities for their engagement can be granted. 5. With aforesaid observations, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 6. Stay application and any other pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/12