[2025:RJ-JD:39049]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16598/2025 Dr. Chandan Jindal S/o Shri Amrit Pal Jindal, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 09, Near Agarwal Dharamshala, Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director (Public Health), Medical And Health Services, Health Bhawan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

3. The Joint Govt. Secretary, Department Of Finance (Expense-1), Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

4. The District Health Committee, Through Its Chairman, The District Collector, Hanumangarh.

5. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Hanumangarh.

6. The Block Chief Medical Officer, Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratan Ankiya HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

03/09/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the respondents be directed not to relieve the petitioner from the post of ‘Medical Officer’ on which he was appointed on urgent temporary basis. The petitioner was appointed at the initial stage till 31.03.2025 or till the date regular employees were available, whichever was earlier. His services were extended subsequently from time to time.

2. Admittedly, vide order dated 11.08.2025, regularly selected candidate has now been appointed in place of the petitioner and hence his services are sought to be discontinued.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that although regularly selected candidate has joined in his place but then several other vacant positions do exist and the petitioner deserves to be considered qua the said vacant posts.

4. This Court is of the clear opinion that if the services of the petitioner were extended with a specific condition, the same definitely has to be adhered to.

5. Admittedly, regularly selected candidate has been appointed in place of the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be observed that the petitioner has any indefeasible right to be continued. No contractual employee appointed for a specific limited period can, as a matter of right, claim to be continued. In State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh; (1992) 4 SCC 118 while reiterating the said principle, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:

“As regards to the temporary/ad hoc employees in govt. service, the normal rule is regular recruitment through prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an ad hoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an ad hoc/temporary employee by regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc/temporary employee.”

6. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi and Others; (2006) 4 SCC 1 Hon’ble the Apex Court while laying down the said principle observed as under:

“If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to th