ORDER : 1. All these writ petitions involve common question of facts and law and, thus, the same are being decided conjointly by this common order. 2. The facts, however, are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15081/2021 (Omprakash vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). 3. The petitioner was engaged as a Class IV employee by the respondent University through a Contractor on 03.05.2005; he is continuing as such till today, of course, through different contractors/placement agencies. 4. The petitioner earlier preferred a writ petition bearing number 12596/2018 seeking regularization of his services on the post of Class IV. When the bunch of writ petitions alongwith writ petition filed by the petitioner was being heard by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 04.08.2020 (Annexure-12), an assertion was made on behalf of the petitioner that services of one Manoj Dave working as a contractual employee through placement agency has been regularized by the respondent – University. 5. It is to be noted that such assertion made by the petitioner was disputed by the respondent – University, as can be discerned by reading Para 4 of the judgment aforesaid. The Court nevertheless deemed it appropriate to dispose of those writ petitions per viam order dated 04.08.2020 with the direction to the respondent – University to consider petitioner’s representation for regularization in accordance with law. 6. In furtherance of above order, the petitioner moved a representation dated 22.08.2020 (Annexure-13) before the Registrar, University claiming regularization of his services. 7. The respondent – University constituted a committee, which considered the petitioner’s representation and rejected the same by way of a detailed order dated 06.04.2021 (Annexure-14). Resultantly, petitioner’s right of regularization has been repudiated. 8. Impugning the order dated 06.04.2021, Mr. Dungawat, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that though services of one Manoj Dave had been regularized by the respondent – University by way of the order dated 03.11.2017, but such benefit was not extended to the petitioner, who has been working with the respondent – University for more than fifteen years. He added that the respondent – University has always found petitioner’s services to be satisfactory and certificate in this regard had also been issued by the University from time to time. 9. He added that the respondent – University has always found petitioner’s services to be satisfactory and certificate in this regard had also been issued by the University from time to time. 9. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, who has been working for the last so many years has become age barred and if the respondent – University does not regularize the petitioner’s services, his future will be jeopardized, inasmuch as, he will not be able to get employment anywhere. 10. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment dated 13.12.2013 passed by this Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8660/2011), wherein this Court had directed the Jai Narayan Vyas University to regularize the services of similarly situated employee/petitioner therein. He informed the Court that the said order has been affirmed by the Division Bench and the Apex Court. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner took the Court through Table Agenda No.1 of the minutes of meeting dated 24.04.2015 to contend that the respondent – University in the meeting decided to regularize the services of the contractual employee. Reliance was also placed on agenda Nos. 6 & 12 of the minutes of meeting dated 15.01.2021. 12. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon following judgments : (i) State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. M.L. Kesri & Ors., reported in AIR 2010 SC 2587 . (ii) Sheo Narayan Nagar & Ors. vs. State of UP & Ors., reported in (2018) 13 SCC 432 . (iii) Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 . (iv) Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2015 (3) SLR 658 . 13. Mr. Sunil Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent – University, on the other hand, submitted that admittedly, the petitioner was engaged through a placement agency on 03.05.2005, as has been stated by the petitioner himself in Para 2 of the memo of writ petition. He submitted that in the year 2013, the respondent – University advertised 18 posts of Class IV employees, however, the petitioner despite having competed for the said post could not make it to the select list. 14. It was argued that after filling up 18 posts, the University is not interested in taking more Peon on regular cadre. He submitted that in the year 2013, the respondent – University advertised 18 posts of Class IV employees, however, the petitioner despite having competed for the said post could not make it to the select list. 14. It was argued that after filling up 18 posts, the University is not interested in taking more Peon on regular cadre. He submitted that it is the decision and discretion of the University to appoint regularly selected Class IV employee or to take services from placement agency/contractor, while keeping in mind its financial constraints and other administrative reasons. 15. Learned counsel submitted that the University awards a contractor or engages a placement agency for supplying of manpower and as and when a particular type of manpower is required, requisite instructions are issued to the placement agency / contractor to deploy a person who fits in the requirement of the University. 16. While inviting Court’s attention towards work orders (Annexure-R/2), learned counsel argued that there is no employer – employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent – University. He added that the respondent – University is neither having any direct control or supervision over the manpower so supplied by the placement agency/contractor, nor does it specify or indicate, the name of person. The placement agency / contractor is paid according to the terms of contract and no payment is made to individual person, engaged through the agency. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent – University relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 05.03.2021 passed in the case of Ashish Dave vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7612/2018), which has been rendered in the case of similarly situated person and argued that in the said case, this Court has held that there is a complete absence of employer – employee relationship and therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 18. In support of his contention that in case of a person engaged through placement agency / contractor, the order of regularization cannot be passed, learned counsel for the respondent -University relied upon the judgment dated 20.02.2019 rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola & Ors., reported in (2019) 13 SCC 82 and Union of India & Ors. vs. Ilmo Devi & Anr. reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 899. 19. In rejoinder, Mr. vs. Ilmo Devi & Anr. reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 899. 19. In rejoinder, Mr. Dungawat, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent – University’s stand that there is no direct employer – employee relationship is incorrect, inasmuch as, the respondent – University has paid the petitioner his salary, which is evident from copy of Bank Statement (Annexure-17) filed with the writ petition. 20. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record and judgments cited at the bar. 21. It is to be noted that the petitioner has firstly approached this Court in the year 2018 by way of filing writ petition seeking relief of regularization. During the writ proceedings dated 04.08.2020, an assertion was made on behalf of the petitioner that services of one Manoj Dave working as contractual employee through placement agency has been regularized. Said writ petition was disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 04.08.2020. 22. In furtherance of the above order passed in petitioner’s earlier writ petition, a detailed representation dated 22.08.2020 was moved, in which not only Manoj Dave’s case was relied upon, but also judgments rendered in the case of Jitendra Kumar (supra) and other cases relating to Jai Narayan Vyas University were cited. 23. It is to be noted that the respondent – University has passed a detailed and well considered decision dated 06.04.2021 dealing with each contention raised by the petitioner and the judgments relied upon. 24. In the opinion of this Court, as petitioner’s representation was decided pursuant to an order passed in his writ petition, such decision is final and binding upon the petitioner, unless it can be shown to be perverse or illegal on the face of it. The petitioner has failed to point out any flaw or infirmity in the above decision dated 06.04.2021 taken by the University. 25. This Court does not find any substance in petitioner’s contention claiming parity with the case of Manoj Dave. A simple look at the appointment order given to Manoj Dave in the year 2004 reveals that he was engaged on adhoc / contract basis and the appointment order was given by none other than the Registrar of University itself. 25. This Court does not find any substance in petitioner’s contention claiming parity with the case of Manoj Dave. A simple look at the appointment order given to Manoj Dave in the year 2004 reveals that he was engaged on adhoc / contract basis and the appointment order was given by none other than the Registrar of University itself. Thereafter, he continued as a contractual employee with the University for a considerable period, before a committee was constituted for considering his case and it was pursuant to the committee’s decision, that the services of said Manoj Dave were regularized by way of the order dated 03.11.2017. 26. As against the case of Manoj Dave, petitioner’s case as set up by the petitioner himself is that, he was engaged through placement agency in the year 2005. Obviouisly, he was never engaged by the University. Since, the petitioner was engaged through a placement agency, there is a complete absence of employer – employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent – University. Hence, the petitioner’s plea of claiming parity with Manoj Dave falls flat on the ground. The payment of the salary has been made to the agency and not to the petitioner. Solitary or stray instances that too for the period of 2017 cannot establish the employer-employee relationship. 27. So far as petitioner’s reliance upon the judgment in the case of Jitendra Kumar (supra) is concerned, this Court finds that in the case of Jitendra Kumar (supra), the Court, as a fact, had found that services of ten similarly situated Class IV employees, were regularized, by the University, hence, the Court passed order for regularization. It will not be out of place to reproduce Para 2 and 4 of the judgment in the case of Jitendra Kumar (supra) as under:- “2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Suman Agarwal has pointed out that vide Annex.20 dtd. 1.4.1999, 10 other similarly situated class IV employees were regularized in the regular pay scale by appointing them as Class IV employee by the respondent-University, but without disclosing any reason as to why the case of the present petitioner was not considered, the respondent – University has not regularized the services of the petitioner. She relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka V/s Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 . 3. xxxxx 4. She relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka V/s Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 . 3. xxxxx 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner is working as Class IV employee as Chowkidar for last more than 20 years, his case is squarely covered by the exception clause of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka V/s Uma Devi (supra). In para 53 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: xxxx xxxx” 28. The fact that the respondent – University has conducted regular recruitment for the post of Class IV in the year 2013, in which the petitioner appeared and failed to get appointment, does not serve the cause of the respondent – University. Because, the petitioner’s endeavour of taking part in selection process cannot take away his right of claiming regularization. 29. So far as petitioner’s contention based on minutes of the meeting dated 24.04.2015 is concerned, nothing turns out to be in petitioner’s favour. Relevant extract of Agenda No.1 is reproduced hereunder : Ø-la- ppkZ fcUnq fooj.k izcU/k cksMZ }kjk fy;k x;k fu.kZ; Vscy ,ts.Mk 1- lafonk lsok ij fu;qDr dkfeZdksa dks fu;fer djus ckcrA lafonk lsok ij dk;Zjr dkfeZd iz'kklfud foHkkx }kjk le;≤ ij tkjh funsZ'kksa dh ikyuk esa fo'ofo|ky; ds dk;Z dks lqpk: :i ls fu"ikfnr djus gsrq lesfdr ikfjJfed ij j[kk x;kA izcU/k e.My dh cSBd esa bl lEcU/k esa ppkZ dh tkdj ;g lS)kfUrd lgefr iznku dh xbZ fd lafonk lsok ij dk;Zjr dkfeZdksa dk fu;fefrdj.k fd;k tkuk pkfg,A cSBd esa izdj.k fu;fefrdj.k djus gsrq iz'kklfud foHkkx dks izsf"kr fd;k tkus ckcr fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA 30. A simple look at Table Agenda No.1 reveals that the respondent – University has decided to regularize the services of contractual employees. 31. This Court feels that mere decision to regularize services of contractual employees does not create any right in petitioner’s favour, more particularly when the petitioner was not even contractual employee of the respondent – University. There was no contract or employer – employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent – University. Services of Manoj Dave, who was having a direct relationship seems to have been regularized by the University on the basis of such resolution. 32. There was no contract or employer – employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent – University. Services of Manoj Dave, who was having a direct relationship seems to have been regularized by the University on the basis of such resolution. 32. By way of agenda No. 6 & 12 of the meeting dated 15.01.2021, a simple decision to increase the honorarium / salary has been taken and the same does not create a right in petitioner’s favour for being regularized, given that his prayer seeking regularization has specifically been turned down by the respondent – University vide order dated 06.04.2021. 33. The law, as to whether an employee engaged through placement agency or contractor can be regularized or not, is well settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (supra) so also in the case of Ilmo Devi (supra). 34. The Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr. vs. Air India Ltd. & Ors. [ (2014) 9 SCC 407 ], while dealing with various judgments has culled out factors to be considered for deciding employer-employee relationship. Relevant part reads thus : (i) who appoints the workers; (ii) who pays the salary/remuneration; (iii) who has the authority to dismiss; (iv) who can take disciplinary action; (v) whether there is continuity of service; and (vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision. 35. A gainful reference of the judgment dated 25.08.2020 passed by this Court in the batch of cases led by Mahaveer Singh Rajpurohit & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (S.B. CWP No. 8872/2019) particularly following paras can be made:- “13. Principle that ‘one set of contractual employees cannot be substituted by another set of contractual employees, unless regularly selected candidates are available’, is alien to such type of engagements or arrangements. 14. The above referred principle can be applied only when the employer, instead of filling up the sanctioned posts through regular selection process, engages persons on contract basis while deferring or avoiding regular selection process for a long period. 14. The above referred principle can be applied only when the employer, instead of filling up the sanctioned posts through regular selection process, engages persons on contract basis while deferring or avoiding regular selection process for a long period. In such circumstances, if a candidate having direct employer-employee relation and having worked for considerable time, is sought to be replaced by another employee on contract basis, then in a given case, rights of such employee can be protected till regularly selected candidates are available for the change of guards. 15. In the opinion of this Court, order of regularisation or mandamus to continue the Contract beyond sunset, i.e., October, 2020, would amount to overriding the contract, which the respondent-University has executed with the contractor. Any such direction as prayed, would amount to rewriting the terms of the Contract, which is impermissible in law. 16. Petitioners are discharging different types of duties, as is evident from the schedule annexed with the captioned writ petition(s). No material has been placed to establish that there are sanctioned posts and if they are working against such posts. Omnibus assertions of general and vague nature have been made. 17. Petitioners who have been engaged by the contractor have neither chosen to implead the Contractor as a party-respondent, nor have they placed the agreement on record. x x x x x x x x 22. Coming to the facts of the present case, petitioners are discharging different kinds of duties (LDC, Mistry, Class IV, to name a few) in the respondent-University, not against any sanctioned posts; that apart they are performing non-teaching duties. If such protection is to be accorded to all and sundry, it would result in a chaotic situation. One cannot be oblivious of the financial burden on the University which is mainly dependent upon the State for even its day to day finances. x x x x x x x x 26. Even in the judgment of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for a mandamus to be issued, it has to be ascertained that the relevant statute imposes a legal duty on the State to do the action for which mandamus is sought. Even in the judgment of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for a mandamus to be issued, it has to be ascertained that the relevant statute imposes a legal duty on the State to do the action for which mandamus is sought. It is pertinent to note that the Apex Court had observed that it is always open for the employer to hire workman on contractual or temporary basis. x x x x x x x x 30. Having waded through the judgments aforesaid, this Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioners, discharging their duties through placement agency (which is not before this Court), do not have any direct relationship with the respondent University. As such, they cannot claim a mandamus for regularization or even for continuation of the contract.” 36. In view of what has already been observed by this Court and the guidelines provided by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Balwant Rai’s case (supra), this Court does not find any employee-employer relationship to exist between the petitioner and the respondent – University. 37. Hence, following the judgment dated 05.03.2021 of this Court in the case of Ashish Dave (supra), given in the case of the very same University, it is held that the petitioner having been engaged through placement agency cannot claim any right of regularization. The mere fact that the petitioner is continuing for last 18-20 years with the respondent – University through different placement agencies does not give any carte-blanche to continue to work in the University for indefinite period. 38. As a corollary of the discussion foregoing, all the writ petitions seeking regularization are, hereby, dismissed. 39. Stay applications also stand dismissed.