[2025:RJ-JD:43432]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2025 Deepak Ghogra S/o Vela Ram, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Dr. Quarter No. 3, General Hospital, Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. Rajasthan Medical Education Society(Rajmes), Through Director, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Rajmes), Through Deputy Director (Admin), Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. Principal And Administrator, Government Medical College And Community Hospital Association, Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh Mr. Siddharth Mewara HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

25/09/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 27.08.2025 (Annexure-7) whereby the services of the petitioner, who had been appointed on ‘Urgent Temporary Basis’, have been terminated on account of the period of 3 months having elapsed.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that appointment order dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure-3) specifically provided that the said appointment, may be on Urgent Temporary Basis, was till the period the regular medical officers are selected and all the vacant seats are filled up. Admittedly, no fresh recruitment process for regular appointments has been initiated by the respondent Department and hence, posts remain vacant till date.

3. Heard the counsel. Perused the record.

4. As is evident from order dated 26.05.2025, the appointment of the petitioner was either for a period of three months or till the vacant posts are filled up by regular recruits or till further orders are passed, whichever is earlier. It is not in dispute that the three months’ period of engagement of the petitioner has ended.

5. It is the settled position of law that, 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. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Other vs. Uma Devi and Others;

(2006) 4 SCC 1 while observing above, further held as under:-

“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 the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.

The High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme.”

6. In view of the above settled position of law, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with order impugned dated

27.08.2025.

7. The writ petition is hence dismissed.

8. However, if the vacant seat on which the petitioner was working is sought to be filled up by any other contractual employee or again on Urgent Temporary Basis, the petitioner would be under a liberty to approach the Court again.

9. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J

366-DhananjayS/-