ORDER : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. The instant Civil Writ Petition have been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for regularization of the services of the petitioners appointed under the Project of National Rural Health Mission. 2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the Government of Rajasthan through its Department of Medical, Health and Family Welfare has been operating a professionally managed emergency response service, initially known as the 108 Ambulance Service Project, which was later integrated and renamed as the Integrated Ambulance Services – Dial an Ambulance Service Project from the year 2015-16 onwards. Presently, the project includes 108 Ambulances, 104 Janani Express, and base ambulances. The petitioners have been working in this project on a contractual basis on the post of EMT (GNM). The said project is operated by the National Health Mission (NHM) through a service provider under the control and supervision of the State Health Society and the respective District Health Societies. It is further stated that there exist two sets of contractual employees in the said project— one engaged through RMRS and the other through the service provider both performing similar nature of duties on equivalent posts. On 01.01.2019, the State Government constituted a Committee comprising various Ministers for addressing the issues of contractual employees, including matters relating to wages and regularization. The first meeting of the said Committee was held on 08.01.2019, wherein it was resolved to seek details of all contractual employees working in different departments for the purpose of considering regularization of their services. In furtherance thereof, on 18.01.2019, the Department of Personnel directed all departments to furnish details of contractual employees. Pursuant to this, during the period between 08.01.2019 and 30.01.2019, the Medical Department also sought information from the concerned CMHOs and CMOs regarding contractual employees. Initially, the National Health Mission decided to forward information of all contractual employees, including those working under the Integrated Ambulance Services, whether through placement agencies or service providers, to the Committee. However, on 09.08.2019, the Project Director, NHM issued directions for providing information only in respect of contractual employees directly engaged under NHM and specifically excluded those working through NGOs or service providers. Consequently, while details of contractual employees working under direct agreements were forwarded to the Committee, the information of similarly situated employees like the petitioners, engaged through the service provider in the same project, was not forwarded. Consequently, while details of contractual employees working under direct agreements were forwarded to the Committee, the information of similarly situated employees like the petitioners, engaged through the service provider in the same project, was not forwarded. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners submitted a representation before the Director, NHM on 18.01.2019, but no action was taken thereon, compelling them to approach this Court by way of filing the present writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material as made available to the Court. 4. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the instant matter is squarely covered by an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11737/2024 (Rodu Lal & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan) decided on 26.08.2025 wherein while allowing the bunch of Writ Petitions. The relevant part of the said order is being reproduced as under:- 26. Undisputedly, the petitioners and similarly situated persons have been appointed admittedly on the post created by the Administrative Department with the concurrence of the Finance Department. They are working on contract basis. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the individuals appointed through the placement agency will not be covered under the Rules of 2022 is without any force as Rule 3 of the said Rules does not contemplate the same. So far as the condition that the individuals ought to have been appointed after inviting applications through public advertisements is concerned, the reason behind the same is likely to prevent back-door entries since public advertisement provides equal opportunity for everyone to participate in the process by applying for the post. 27. It is pertinent to note that in some of the cases as argued by the petitioners, the placement agency had duly issued an advertisement and thereafter the petitioners have been selected. Thus, the individuals who fulfill all the four conditions required under Rule 3 of the Rules of 2022 cannot be discriminated merely on count of the fact that they have been appointed through a placement agency. 28. The appointment of the employees through a placement agency by the State Government appears to have been made with an intent to avoid any liability that could have arise on the State due to such employment. 28. The appointment of the employees through a placement agency by the State Government appears to have been made with an intent to avoid any liability that could have arise on the State due to such employment. However, a Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works (supra) held that in light of welfare legislation, the liability could be imposed on the principal employer even if the employee has been appointed through a contractor. 29. Relying upon the said judgment, this Court is of the opinion that the Rules of 2022 are in nature of welfare legislation which has been framed by the State to deprecate the practice of the Departments to appoint contractual employees without their being any regulations to govern them and further with an intent to ensure that the employees who have been working on contractual basis are brought within the purview of the said rules. Moreover, the Rules of 2022 had been given a retrospective effect as it has been intended to cover even those employees who have been working on contractual basis as on the date of enforcement of the Rules of 2022. By such rules, the unregulated employment is made into regulated employment. 30. In light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works (supra), the denial of benefit of the Rules of 2022 to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons having been appointed through placement agency is not sustainable. Thus, the interpretation of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2022 as done by the respondent-State Government by way of reply as well as the instructions issued by the employers is an incorrect interpretation against the intent and object which are sought to be achieved by the Rules of 2022. If such interpretation is drawn, it would amount creating two classes from one class. The legislation intends only one class i.e. contract employee. If such classification is allowed, it would amount creating classes within class and such classification defeat the legislative intention. 31. Moreover, the respondents cannot discriminate against the employees appointed through placement agency, if they fulfill the conditions as provided under Rule 3 of the Rules of 2022 which specifically states four conditions only, as enumerated in earlier part of this judgment. 31. Moreover, the respondents cannot discriminate against the employees appointed through placement agency, if they fulfill the conditions as provided under Rule 3 of the Rules of 2022 which specifically states four conditions only, as enumerated in earlier part of this judgment. Therefore, the petitioners and similarly situated persons ought to be considered for the purpose of coverage under the Rules of 2022, if they fulfill the conditions i.e. post has been created by the Administrative Department in concurrence with the Finance Department and the appointment has been made through public advertisement. If the appointment has been made pursuant to a public advertisement, whether through the placement agency or directly by the Government, the same cannot be differentiated merely on count of having been appointed by the placement agency and thus, the action of the respondents cannot be countenanced by denying the benefits of the Rules of 2022 to the employees who have been appointed through placement agency in spite of fulling all the conditions as required under the Rules of 2022. 32. The Rules of 2022, being a welfare legislation, intends not only to regulate the persons who will be appointed in future on contractual basis but also applies to those persons who are already working on contractual basis as on the date of of the rules. 33. The object of the Rules of 2022 enforcement, is reproduced hereinafter:- “Whereas the State Government in public interest undertakes departmental Schemes /Projects/Central Sponsored Schemes/ Projects for social and economic development as a welfare State. For implementation of most of these projects/ schemes requires the subject matter specialists, experts and manpower and posts for which do not exists in any other Service Rules in the government for regulating appointments and conditions of service of such posts. By their very nature the development schemes/projects undertaken by the Government are usually required for short term or medium term. Therefore, State Government needs to allow such posts to be filled in by way of hiring persons on contract basis in the State Government. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Rajasthan hereby makes the following rules, regulating the hiring of subject matter specialists, experts and manpower on contract, and the conditions of the services of persons hired to the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022, namely:-” 34. The Court is of the firm opinion that the said Rules have been framed with an object to regulate the contractual employees engaged under various schemes by the State. The Rules of 2022 does not carve out a distinction between the employees appointed on contractual basis either directly by the Government or through a placement agency. However, by way of caution, it is clarified that the persons who are appointed by the placement agency only after inviting applications by way of public advertisement are to be considered and not the persons appointed without there being any public advertisement, as the absence of public advertisement may lead to the back-door entries. 35. Further, this Court is of the opinion that the notification promulgating the Rules of 2022 does not provide for any substantive right to claim regularization and therefore, the argument of the respondents that the contractual employees appointed through placement agency cannot claim the right of regularization as there is no privity of contract between the State and employee is not tenable and the judgments cited on this issue are not relevant for decision of the present controversy. 36. Further, the judgment of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (supra) cited by learned counsel for the respondents has no application as it was a case where employees of contractors working in BHEL were not found to be employees of BHEL and therefore, termination was found valid and reinstatement of service award was set aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The said case is not applicable in present set of facts. Furthermore, that judgment has not considered the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works (supra). 37. The Rules of 2022 provides the manner in which the appointments are to be made on contractual basis for a particular period. Further, Rule 11 provides that the contractual appointment shall stand terminated automatically on expiry of the period of contract and there would be no requirement of issuing a separate order for terminating the services. 38. On application of said rules, the State Government, in respect of contractual employees working on the date of commencement of these rules, is required to issue an appointment order as provided under Rule 12 in the prescribed form as appended to the Rules. 38. On application of said rules, the State Government, in respect of contractual employees working on the date of commencement of these rules, is required to issue an appointment order as provided under Rule 12 in the prescribed form as appended to the Rules. However, the issuance of an appointment order does not confer any right upon the employee to claim the regularization. It is merely an appointment order on contract basis for fixed term and therefore, the action of the respondents to exclude the individuals appointed by placement agency through public advertisement cannot be allowed to be continued. 39. Further, the respondents in their reply or during the course of arguments have not come out with a case that the services of the petitioner and similarly situated persons working through placement agency in the scheme is no more required, rather it reflects that even after the promulgation of the Rules of 2022, the petitioners and similarly situated persons appointed through placement agency are carrying out their duties and it is not the case of the respondents that the posts on which they have been working are abolished by virtue of completion of the scheme under which they were engaged. Therefore, when once the petitioners and similarly situated persons are continuing on their posts under the scheme, the State Government cannot deny to regulate their service by applying the Rules of 2022, as with the implementation of the said Rules, every contractual employee has to be regulated by the Rules framed by exercising powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India who fulfill the criteria as given under Rule 3 of the Rules of 2022. 40. This Court is further of the firm opinion that if the respondents continue with the services of the petitioners, without covering them under the Rules of 2022 would be against the principles as enumerated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments wherein the Court has opined that the practice of appointment of contractual employees without any rules would lead to a situation of exploitation by the employer. With this intent only, the Rules of 2022 have been framed and therefore, 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. 41. With this intent only, the Rules of 2022 have been framed and therefore, 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. 41. In light of the aforesaid facts & findings and the judgments, this Court is of the opinion that Rule 3 of the Rules of 2022 has to be read harmoniously, whereby, the petitioners and similarly situated persons, who have been appointed through placement agency after issuance of public advertisement are to be covered under the ambit of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2022. Since, the above rule has been read harmoniously in favour of the petitioners, therefore, there is no requirement to decide question No. (b), which was framed under para 13. The harmonious reading of the Rule itself clarifies that, there ought to be no discrimination between the contractual employees appointed through placement agency as well as the contractual employees appointed directly. 42. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are allowed in the following terms : (i) The respondents shall consider the individual case of each contractual employee, appointed prior to enforcement of the Rules of 2022 strictly in accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules of 2022, meaning thereby, that if an employee has been appointed on a post created by the Administrative Department with the concurrence of the Finance Department and the appointment has been through issuance of a public advertisement further without there being any differentiation whether the public advertisement has been issued by the State Government or by the placement agency. (ii) If the case of the individual is in conformation with the Rule 3 of the Rules of 2022, as interpreted above, then the benefit of the Rules of 2022 shall be extended to such petitioners. 43. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 5. Keeping in mind the law enunciated in the order passed in Rodu Lal (supra), the present writ petition is allowed in the same terms and manner as laid down therein. However, it is observed that the appointment letters of certain petitioners have either not been brought on record or are not annexed with their respective writ petitions. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to verify the authenticity and existence of such appointment letters prior to giving effect to this order. However, it is observed that the appointment letters of certain petitioners have either not been brought on record or are not annexed with their respective writ petitions. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to verify the authenticity and existence of such appointment letters prior to giving effect to this order. 5.1 The respondents are directed to assess the cases of every individual petitioner separately and the benefit of the judgment referred (Supra) be given to only those petitioners whose cases are squarely covered by the ratio laid down therein. 5.2. The entire process of verification, wherever necessary, shall be completed by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Upon completion of such verification, if it is found that the petitioners are similarly situated and their cases are identical to those covered under the decision in Rodu Lal (supra), they shall be extended the same benefits and consequential reliefs without any further delay. 5.3. The stay petitions and all pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.