[2026:RJ-JD:3741]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 862/2026

1. Dr. Yash Soni S/o Shri Chandra Prakash Soni, Aged About

28 Years, Resident Of Dhapi Marble, Banar District Jodhpur. At Present Working As Medical Officer (Utb), Phc Panditji Ki Dhani, Block Osian District Jodhpur.

2. Dr. Anil Mundel S/o Shri Dharma Ram Mundel, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 17, 110 Mahadev Nagar, Nandri, Jodhpur. At Present Working As Medical Officer (Utb), Phc Gangani, Block Baori District Jodhpur.

3. Dr. Dilip Singh Gehlot S/o Shri Hukma Ram, Aged About

37 Years, Resident Of Roopawaton Ka Bera, Kali Beri, Jodhpur. At Present Working As Medical Officer (Utb), Phc Narwa Block Keru District Jodhpur.

4. Dr. Mahak Tak D/o Shri Rajendra Singh Tak, Aged About

29 Years, Resident Of Swagat Bhawan, Krishna Mandir Chouraha, Ratanada, Jodhpur. At Present Working As Medical Officer (Utb), Chc Chamu District Jodhpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health Services, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Joint Secretary, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. The Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical, Health And Family Welfare Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).

4. The District Collector, Jodhpur.

5. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jodhpur Rural ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary a/w Mr. Mahendra.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanuj Jain on behalf of Mr. Mukesh Dave, Govt. Counsel.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

21/01/2026

1. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard on final disposal.

2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in not continuing the services of the petitioners to the post of Medical Officer on Temporary Urgent Basis.

3. The petitioner was initially recruited to the post of Medical Officer on Urgent Temporary Basis by way of contract and the terms of contract clearly indicate that any such an appointments are made subject to one year or till the regular appointments are made, whichever is earlier. Subsequently, by order dated 30.04.2025, the employment of the petitioners was extended till 30.09.2025, and thereafter, there was no extension order, therefore, they have filed the present writ petition.

4. The case of the State is that the very contract is for an engagement for one year or till the regular appointments are made, whichever is earlier and their services were not further extended for the reason that a regular recruitment to the post of Medical Officer has already been done and posted. Therefore, the petitioners have no vested right to continue after the regular appointments are made to the post of Medical Officer.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly submitted that the engagement of Medical Officer through regular recruitment is already done and they have no vested right to seek continuation on such post, where the appointments are made regularly; however, the respondents may sympathetically consider their case for re-engagement on the vacant post, which are unfilled with regular recruitment and such a vacant post also be filled basing on the merit as well as period of experience of the candidates, who were being disengaged by virtue of regular appointments.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the respondent-Authority decided to fill-up any unfilled vacancies, which are available after filling up of the regular vacancies, the case for reengaging the persons may be considered sympathetically including the case of the petitioners for re- engagement on the vacant/unfilled post subject to merit and period of experience among the candidates.

7. The terms of the contract clearly indicate that their appointment is on Temporary Basis and for a fixed period or happening of certain eventuality of regular appointments. Since the very discontinuation is based on the regular appointments, the