1. Challenge to rejection of candidature for contractual post under Rules of 2022 and subsequent termination during pendency of writ petition. (Para 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 733
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
Irfan Ali S/o Shri Ishahak Ali - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2925 of 2025, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19597 of 2023
Decided On : 05-01-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Akshit Gupta, Ms. Pragya Seth, Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, Mr. Nakul Bansal, Mr. Shreyansh Dhariwal
For the Respondent: Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC
For the Petitioner: Mr. Akshit Gupta, Ms. Pragya Seth, Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, Mr. Nakul Bansal, Mr. Shreyansh Dhariwal
For the Respondent: Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC
Contractual employees with unblemished records are entitled to a fair hearing before adverse action is taken. Termination of service in violation of a court's interim order restraining coercive action is arbitrary, illegal, and warrants reinstatement with back wages.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Service Posts Rules, 2022 - Eligibility for absorption - Documentary evidence - To claim absorption under specialized contractual rules, the employee must provide substantial documentary proof of employment under the specified scheme; a mere identity card is insufficient to establish such eligibility. (Paras 13-17)
(B) Service Law - Contractual Employment - Termination - Due process - Even contractual employees are entitled to a fair hearing before adverse action is taken, particularly when their service records are unblemished. Termination of service during the operation of an interim order restraining coercive action constitutes a clear violation of judicial directions and is deemed arbitrary, malafide, and illegal. (Paras 19, 23, 24)
Facts of the case:
A contractual employee challenged the rejection of his candidature for absorption into a data entry post under the Rules of 2022. While the first petition was pending and an interim order was in place restraining the respondents from taking coercive action, the employee was directed to change his employment from a direct contract to one through a third-party service provider. Upon the employee referencing the pending litigation, his services were terminated.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to produce sufficient documentation (such as payment records) to prove his engagement under the specific scheme required for absorption under the Rules of 2022. However, the termination of his existing contractual services was found to be a violation of the court's interim order and an act of unfair labor practice.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner's identity card was sufficient to prove eligibility for absorption under the Rules of 2022 and whether the termination of the petitioner's services during the pendency of a protective interim order was legally sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility for absorption under specific government rules requires rigorous documentary proof, and an identity card alone is inadequate. Simultaneously, the principle of natural justice applies to contractual employees; terminating such employees without a fair hearing and in defiance of a court’s stay against coercive action is an arbitrary exercise of power that warrants reinstatement and back wages.
Result: Writ Petition No. 19597/2023 dismissed; Writ Petition No. 2925/2025 allowed, termination order quashed, petitioner reinstated with back wages and directed to be absorbed against a sanctioned contractual post.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claimed eligibility under MNDY Scheme; respondents contended petitioner was not appointed under that scheme and engagement was contractual. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. Termination order violated interim protection; identity card alone insufficient to prove appointment under MNDY Scheme; termination was illegal and arbitrary. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 23 , 24 )
4. Even contractual employees are entitled to fair hearing before adverse action, particularly when service records are unblemished. (Para 23 )
5. Writ petition against rejection dismissed; termination order quashed; petitioner reinstated and directed to be absorbed under Rules of 2022. (Para 25 , 26 )
6. Can a contractual employee be terminated without a fair hearing during the pendency of a writ petition?
No, termination during pendency of a writ petition with an interim order restraining coercive action is a clear violation and is illegal and arbitrary. (Para 19 , 23 , 24 )
7. What is the evidentiary standard to prove appointment under a specific government scheme?
An identity card alone is insufficient; the employee must place on record supporting documents regarding appointment and payment under the scheme. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
8. What is the remedy for a contractual employee whose candidature is rejected for absorption under a new scheme?
The employee must prove eligibility under the governing rules. Failure to provide adequate evidence results in dismissal of the challenge. (Para 16 , 17 )
9. Is an employer bound to absorb a contractual employee on an additional sanctioned post?
Yes, if the post is sanctioned specifically for absorption of existing contractual workers, the employer must absorb the eligible employee. (Para 16 , 24 )
ORDER :
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
1. These two writ petitions are connected with each other, therefore we are deciding these writ petitions with common order.
2. Earlier writ petition No.19597/2023 is filed by petitioner Irfan Ali and on 07.12.2023 an interim order is passed in favour of the petitioner, restraining respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner. During pendency of said writ petition, the services of petitioner were terminated on 08.02.2025 and subsequent writ petition No.2925/2025 is filed.
3. Writ Petition No.2925/2025 is filed with following prayer:
i) the impugned order dated 08.02.2025 issued by respondents by virtue of which services of the petitioner has been terminated from the post of Computer Operator w.e.f. 08.02.2025 may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary;
ii) by issuing the writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may be directed:
a) to consider the applications dated 07.01.2025, 16.01.2025 and 30.01.2025 submitted by the petitioner before the respondent authorities;
b) to allow the petitioner to render his service on the post of Computer Operator with all consequential benefits;
c) to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Computer Operator by considering his experience with all consequential benefits and seniority;
4. During pendency of writ petition No.19597/2023, another writ petition No.2925/2025 is filed with following prayer:
i) the impugned letter dated 29.09.2023 issued by Respondent No. 4 whereby the candidature of the humble petitioner came to be rejected for the post of Data Entry Operator may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary;
ii) by issuing the writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may be directed
a) to consider the candidature of the humble the petitioner for appointment on the post of Data Entry Operator sanctioned under Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Service Posts Rules, 2022 ;
b) to grant appointment to the humble petitioner on the post of Data Entry Operator in pursuance to the post sanctioned vide letter dated 25.08.2023 with all consequential benefits.”
5. Brief facts of the case are that present petitioner was selected and appointed on post of computer operator by Respondent No. 5(WP No.19597/2023) pursuant to selection process initiated by an advt. dated 01.08.2019 published in Dainik Bhaskar on 03.08.2019. On 25.08.2023, the Respondent No. 3 has invited application for the post of Data Entry Operator, (earlier known as Machine with Man), sanctioned under Rajasthan contractual hiring to Civil Posts Rules 2022, (hereinafter referred as “Rules of 2022”), and petitioner has filed application pursuant to said advertisement. The petitioner is having experience of computer operator since 2012 and was working with Respondent No. 5, was eligible and qualified for appointment, but the Respondents have rejected the candidature of present petitioner and communicated vide Order dated 29.09.2023 about the rejection and the writ petition No.19597/2023 is filed. While considering the writ petition, an interim order 07.12.2023 is passed restraining Respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner.
6. During pendency of the writ petition, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 08.02.2025, hence a fresh writ petition No.2925/2025 is filed.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that on 01.08.2019, Respondents have invited application on post of Computer Operator and Present Petitioner has applied pursuance to advertisement and vide communication dated 27.08.2019. Present Petitioner was found eligible on post of Computer Operator. He further submitted that during his employment with Respondents, an advertisement dated 25.08.2023 is issued for engaging 2532 Computer Operator (earlier working as Machine with man on contract) under the Rules of 2022. The Petitioner has filed an application for selection as he was already working as Computer Opera
