Judgment

1. By way of filing this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a direction to continue his services while treating his age of superannuation as 62 years with consequential benefits and he may not be retired w.e.f. 24.02.2026 treating his age of superannuation as 60 years.

2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis as Ayush Doctor in the year 2017, thereafter, on enactment of Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Post Rules, 2022 (for short ‘the Rules of 2022’), the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 02.05.2023 on the post of Ayurved Officer. In the appointment order itself, it was shown that the contractual appointment shall stand terminated on 24.02.2026.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13496/2021 (Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) has directed that the notification enhancing the age of retirement from 60 to 62 years in respect of Allopathic Doctor shall also be applicable in respect of Ayurvedic Doctors also and they shall also be retired only on attaining age of 62 years. As per learned counsel, judgment of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma (supra) is applicable in his case also.

4. Learned counsel also relied upon notification dated 31.03.2016, which was issued by the respondent-Government in respect of Allopathic Doctors, which has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma (supra)

5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that in appointment order of the petitioner dated 02.05.2023 itself, it was mentioned that the appointment is contractual in nature and shall stand terminated on 24.02.2026. Petitioner has consciously accepted such appointment with the conditions mentioned therein, therefore, at this stage, petitioner can not be allowed to take a different stand. Judgment of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma (supra) is not applicable in the case of the petitioner, nor can the petitioner claim any benefit out of notification dated 31.03.2016.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. This Court perused the order dated 02.05.2023, whereby the petitioner was appointed on the post of Ayurved Officer on contractual basis under the Rules of 2022. The order clearly reflects that such contractual appointment were only upto 24.02.2026, and it was specifically mentioned that on that day the contractual appointment shall stand terminated.

8. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since, in the case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma (supra) the Division Bench of this Court has directed that age of retirement of Ayurvedic Doctor shall also be 62 years, therefore, the petitioner cannot be retired on attaining 60 years of age, is totally misconceived, for the reasons that the above judgment was delivered by the Division Bench in all together different context and on the basis of different facts. The Division Bench was considering the cases, where the petitioner in that case was appointed on substantive basis as per the recruitment Rules and was not considering the cases of contractual appointment under the Rules of 2022.

9. It is settled proposition of law that contractual appointment is governed by the terms and conditions of the appointment order and since, in the instant case, in the appointment order itself, it was shown that the appointment was only upto 24.02.2026, therefore, no mistake whatsoever has been committed by the respondents in terminating the contractual appointment w.e.f 24.02.2026.

10. As regards notification dated 31.03.2016 relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, same is applicable only in respect of MBBS degree holders who were governed by Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules as well as by Rajas