The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that contractual employees hired through placement agencies, but appointed pursuant to public advertisements, cannot be excluded from the benefits of the Contractual Hiring To Civil Posts Rules, 2022. This ruling reinforces the constitutional principle of equal treatment and closes a critical loophole exploited by state authorities to deny regularization to long-serving workers.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Deepak Kumar Vyas and Hanuman Ram, were engaged as contractual staff in government health institutions in Jhalawar and Jalore districts through private placement agencies. Despite performing duties identical to regular civil servants and serving for years, they were denied inclusion under the Contractual Hiring To Civil Posts Rules, 2022, solely because their appointments were routed through third-party agencies.
Procedural History
- The petitioners filed representations seeking coverage under the Rules of 2022, which were left unaddressed by the respondents.
- They relied on a prior Division Bench judgment in Rodu Lal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, which had already interpreted Rule 3 of the Rules of 2022 to include contractual employees appointed via public advertisement, regardless of hiring channel.
- The present writ petition was filed to enforce the binding precedent set in Rodu Lal and to compel the state to act.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a direction to the state to consider their cases for regularization under the Rules of 2022, arguing that exclusion based on the mode of appointment - placement agency versus direct hiring - violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Rule 3 of the Contractual Hiring To Civil Posts Rules, 2022 excludes contractual employees appointed through placement agencies, even when their recruitment followed a public advertisement issued by the state or its authorized body.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the binding precedent in Rodu Lal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, arguing that the Division Bench had already held that discrimination between direct hires and agency hires is unconstitutional if both are recruited through public advertisement. They emphasized that the Rules of 2022 were framed to eliminate arbitrary contractualization and that excluding agency-hired workers defeats the very purpose of the Rules. They cited State of Rajasthan v. Balram and UOI v. Naveen Kishore to underscore that substance must prevail over form in service matters.
For the Respondent
The state did not file a detailed counter-affidavit. The respondents’ silence was interpreted by the Court as acquiescence to the precedent set in Rodu Lal. No legal argument was advanced to distinguish the petitioners’ cases or to justify differential treatment.
The Court's Analysis
The Court reaffirmed the Rodu Lal judgment as binding and applied its reasoning with clarity. It held that the harmonious interpretation of Rule 3 requires that the mode of appointment - whether by the state directly or through a placement agency - is irrelevant if the recruitment was preceded by a public advertisement and approved by the Finance Department.
"The benefit of the said rules cannot be denied to the petitioners and similarly situated persons merely on the count of having been appointed through placement agency."
The Court emphasized that the constitutional mandate against arbitrariness under Article 14 prohibits classification without reasonable basis. Since both categories of employees - direct and agency-hired - were selected through the same transparent process, the distinction was irrational and violative of equality. The Court further noted that the Rules of 2022 were enacted to curb the abuse of contractual employment, and denying coverage to agency-hired workers would perpetuate the very exploitation the Rules sought to eliminate.
The Court also rejected any notion that placement agencies acted as independent employers. It found that the administrative control, funding, and job function remained entirely with the state, making the agency merely a recruitment conduit.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that Rule 3 of the Contractual Hiring To Civil Posts Rules, 2022 applies to all contractual employees appointed via public advertisement, irrespective of whether the hiring was done directly or through a placement agency. The state was directed to consider the petitioners’ representations within three months and extend benefits if they meet the Rule’s criteria.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Appointment Through Agency Does Not Disqualify
- Practitioners representing contractual workers must now argue that public advertisement is the decisive criterion, not the hiring channel.
- Any denial of regularization based on agency hiring is legally unsustainable post this judgment.
State Must Proactively Apply the Rules
- Government departments must review all existing contractual appointments made after public advertisement since the Rules’ inception.
- Failure to do so exposes the state to litigation under Article 226 and potential contempt proceedings.
Documentation Is Key
- Petitioners must produce proof of: (i) public advertisement, (ii) finance department concurrence, and (iii) continuous service.
- Oral claims or internal memos without documentary support will not suffice.
No Discrimination Based on Hiring Source
- This judgment establishes a uniform standard for regularization across all state departments.
- Similar claims in education, municipal, and public health sectors can now be framed with confidence.
