[2026:RJ-JP:25158] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9892/2026 URN: CW / 22033U / 2026 Narendra Singh Nitharwal S/o Shri Narayan Singh Nitharwal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Sitarampura, Malikpur, Govind Garh, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 303712 (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jaipur-I, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 4. The Medical Officer Incharge, Govt. Community Health Center, Kaladera, Jaipur, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.) 5. The Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society, Community Health Center, Kaladera, Jaipur District Jaipur Through Its Member Secretary (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC Mr. Yashwant Singh Mr. Rahul Verma HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 06/07/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 21.05.2026 whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated w.e.f. the same date on the pretext that financial sanction qua year 2026-2027 for the post of 'Computer Operator' on which he was working, had not been granted. 2. However, Counsel for the respondents submits that because of a new Scheme “Hub & Spoke Model” been adopted by the State, the services for the post of 'Computer Operator' working [2026:RJ-JP:25158] (2 of 3) [CW-9892/2026] through placement agency, have been sought to be terminated. Counsel while relying upon the Co-ordinate Bench Judgment of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7228/2026; Manish Dotasara Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (decided on 29.04.2026) submitted that the issue has already been settled and the Court has declined to interfere with the Scheme. However, keeping into consideration the fact that the State had already directed the agency to absorb the earlier working employees on priority basis, therein, the Court passed the following directions which take care of the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner:- “i. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the order of termination, however, the respondents, who had already instructed to the private entity which is offering consolidated services of infrastructure as well as manpower to take the services of the petitioners and in view thereof, it is an obligation on part of the respondents to see that the persons, who are working under the old scheme, if they are willing to work, they shall be continued their services under the new scheme also. ii. It is also responsibility of the respondents to see that the pay protection, which is extended to the manpower of similar nature of duties, who are sponsored from outsourcing agencies, if the Government is taking services, shall also be directed to be adopted by the labs, under which, the new scheme is executing.” 3. The fact that the present petitioner had been working through a placement agency is not disputed. In that view, the case of the petitioner is definitely governed by the ratio laid down in Manish Dotasara (supra). The present writ petition is hence disposed of on the same terms and conditions as in Manish Dotasara (supra). [2026:RJ-JP:25158] (3 of 3) [CW-9892/2026] 4. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (REKHA BORANA),J 12/KASHISH