Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 12181
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Anand Sharma, J
SMT. PREM DEVI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8508/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mahipaal Rajpurohit, Pulkeshwar Rajpurohit
For the Respondents:
Long-term temporary or contractual service does not grant a vested right to challenge regular recruitment or demand relaxation in eligibility criteria once the recruitment process has substantially progressed.
Headnote:(A) Recruitment Process - Age and Educational Relaxation - Seeking relaxation in eligibility criteria after the recruitment process has substantially proceeded and results have been declared is legally untenable and inconceivable. (Para 7)
(B) Contractual Employment - Vested Rights - Long-term service on a temporary or contractual basis does not confer any vested right upon the employees to challenge a notification for regular recruitment initiated by the department. (Para 9)
(C) Protection from Replacement - Regular Recruitment - The plea against being replaced by another set of contractual employees is misconceived when the recruitment process is for regular appointments under the recruitment rules. (Para 8)
Issues: Whether temporary/contractual employees are entitled to age and educational relaxation in a regular recruitment process and protection from replacement.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek age/educational relaxation and protection from replacement due to long-term temporary service. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. requests for relaxation are untimely and inapplicable to regular recruitment processes. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. contractual service confers no vested right to challenge regular recruitment or claim parity. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
Order
1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition with following prayers.
2. It is stated that the petitioner No.1 has been working on temporary basis for last 30 years, petitioners No.2, 3 and 5 for last 9 years and petitioner No.4 for last 23 years with the respondent - Department. However, ignoring the claims of the petitioners, the respondents initiated regular recruitment process vide notification dated 12.12.2024 further modified on 03.03.2025 whereby applications have been invited from open market for recruitment on the post of Class IV employees.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said notification, since no age relaxation was given for the candidates who are already working on temporary basis/ on contract basis in different departments therefore, on the count of being overage, the petitioners could not submit the application pursuant to recruitment notification dated 12.12.2024.
4. Learned counsel submits that petitioners have got apprehension that soon after availability of regularly recruited and appointment of candidates, the services of the petitioners shall be terminated.
5. Learned counsel prays that respondents be directed that petitioners may not be replaced with another set of contractual employees and to provide relaxation of age as well as educational qualification to the petitioners so as to enable them to participate in the process of recruitment initiated vide notification dated 12.12.2024.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
7. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners that recruitment process pursuant to notification dated 12.12.2024 has substantially proceeded further and after conducting screening examination, the respondents have declared the result and are proceeding further for document verification. No reason whatsoever has been mentioned for the petitioners for not approaching this Court immediately after issuance of notification dated 12.12.2024 and at this stage seeking age relaxation and further relaxation in educational qualification for the purpose of participating in the recruitment process is totally inconceivable and not tenable in the eyes of law.
8. The prayer with regard to not replacing the petitioners with another set of contractual employees is also totally misconceived for the reason that notification dated 12.12.2024 was issued by the respondents not for engaging another set of contractual employees, but for regular recruitment under the recruitment rules.
9. Mere continuance of the petitioners on contractual basis/temporary basis for a long period does not confer any vested right upon the petitioners to challenge the notification of regular recruitment initiated by the respondents.
10. It is admitted that the petitioners are not holding the post in substantive capacity therefore they cannot seek any better rights than the candidates who will be made available after completion of the aforesaid regular recruitment process.
10. In the view of above, there is no scope of interference in the instant writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
