The Rajasthan High Court has directed that service experience gained through placement agencies must be considered for contractual hiring under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring Civil Posts Rules, 2022. This judgment reinforces the principle of non-discrimination and ensures that contractual employees are not arbitrarily replaced, particularly when vacancies exist within the department.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, comprising 34 individuals, were engaged as Nursing Officers through placement agencies in various medical institutions under the Directorate of Medical Education, Government of Rajasthan. Despite performing duties equivalent to those hired under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring Civil Posts Rules, 2022, the respondents issued a communication dated 03.06.2026 (Annexure-4) terminating their services. The petitioners challenged this action as arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Key Facts
The petitioners were engaged through placement agencies to discharge duties similar to those of contractual employees hired under the Rules of 2022.
A communication dated 15.06.2026 (Annexure-6) revealed that several posts of Nursing Officers remained vacant.
The respondents sought to replace the petitioners with another set of contractual employees despite the existing vacancies.
The petitioners sought inclusion of their service experience through placement agencies for consideration under the Rules of 2022.
Procedural History
19.06.2026: A Coordinate Bench of the Rajasthan High Court disposed of a similar writ petition (Vikash Joshi & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SBCWP No. 13019/2026) with directions to accommodate the petitioners in available vacancies.
13.07.2026: The present writ petition (SBCWP No. 14166/2026) was filed seeking similar reliefs.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought the following reliefs:
Quashing of the communication dated 03.06.2026 (Annexure-4) denying them appointment under the Rules of 2022.
Declaration that the respondents' action in not considering their service experience through placement agencies was illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.
Direction to the respondents to count their service experience and appoint them under the Rules of 2022 with all consequential benefits.
Direction to the respondents to consider their candidature against available vacancies and refrain from replacing them until regularly selected candidates under the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 were available.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the respondents could arbitrarily terminate the services of employees engaged through placement agencies, despite their performance of identical duties as contractual employees, and whether their service experience should be considered for contractual hiring under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring Civil Posts Rules, 2022.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The petitioners relied on the order dated 19.06.2026 in Vikash Joshi & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., which directed the respondents to accommodate similarly situated employees in available vacancies.
They contended that the respondents' action in terminating their services was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.
They argued that their service experience through placement agencies should be treated as equivalent to direct contractual service for the purpose of hiring under the Rules of 2022.
For the Respondents
The judgment does not record specific arguments presented by the respondents. However, the respondents' stance, as inferred from the communication dated 03.06.2026, was to disengage the petitioners and replace them with another set of contractual employees.
The Court's Analysis
The Court relied on the precedent set in Vikash Joshi & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., wherein it was held that:
"Considering the limited prayer of the petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4 & respondent No.5 to ascertain the number of vacancies available with them in their jurisdiction and if they desire to take the services of the petitioners on the post available, the petitioners may be adjusted or accommodated to serve on those posts till the regularly selected candidates are available with the respondent-Department."
The Court emphasized the principle of non-discrimination and equality of opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It observed that the petitioners were performing identical duties as those hired under the Rules of 2022, and their arbitrary termination without considering their service experience was unjust.
The Court further clarified that:
"It is made clear that if any of the petitioners are not discharging their duties satisfactorily, the respondents will be free to discharge them from the employment."
This ensured that the respondents retained the discretion to terminate services in cases of unsatisfactory performance, thereby balancing the rights of the petitioners with the administrative needs of the respondents.
The Verdict
The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms similar to Vikash Joshi & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., with the following directions:
The respondents (No. 4 and No. 5) were directed to ascertain the number of vacancies available within their jurisdiction.
If the respondents desired to retain the services of the petitioners, they were to be adjusted or accommodated in the available posts until regularly selected candidates under the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 were available.
The respondents retained the discretion to discharge any petitioner found to be discharging their duties unsatisfactorily.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Service Experience Through Placement Agencies Must Be Considered
This judgment establishes that service experience gained through placement agencies cannot be arbitrarily disregarded for contractual hiring under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring Civil Posts Rules, 2022.
Departments must consider such experience as equivalent to direct contractual service, particularly when the duties performed are identical.
Non-Discrimination in Contractual Hiring
The judgment reinforces the principle that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution prohibit arbitrary termination of employees engaged through placement agencies if they are performing the same duties as contractual employees.
Departments cannot replace such employees with another set of contractual employees without first considering their candidature for available vacancies.
Discretion to Terminate for Unsatisfactory Performance
While the judgment protects the rights of employees engaged through placement agencies, it also preserves the respondents' discretion to terminate services in cases of unsatisfactory performance.
This ensures a balance between safeguarding employees' rights and maintaining administrative efficiency.
Practitioners should argue for the inclusion of service experience through placement agencies in contractual hiring processes, particularly when vacancies exist.
Employees facing arbitrary termination should invoke Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution to challenge discriminatory actions.
Departments must ensure compliance with the directions of this judgment to avoid legal challenges.
