SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 15638

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Anil Kumar Upman, J
Ramkhiladi Saini – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7932/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajendra Prasad Gautam
For the Respondents: Prateek Saxena, Kapil Prakash Mathur

Contractual appointments governed by the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022, cannot be extended beyond the age of 60 years, as statutory rules prevail over any contradictory administrative circulars or instructions.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022 - Rule 11 - Contractual appointment - Maximum age - Petitioner sought extension of contractual service beyond 60 years up to 65 years - Court held that Rule 11 of the Rules of 2022 explicitly mandates that contractual appointment shall not be extended beyond 60 years - Administrative circulars or instructions cannot override or supplant statutory rules - Principle of promissory estoppel does not operate against a statute.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Junior Technical Assistant appointed under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022, challenged the respondent's refusal to extend his contractual services beyond the age of 60 to 65 years. The petitioner contended that other categories were allowed to continue up to 65 years and relied on external circulars.

Findings of Court:
The court held that Rule 11 of the 2022 Rules is clear and mandatory in prescribing 60 years as the cap for contractual employment. It ruled that statutory rules prevail over any contrary circulars or administrative instructions.

Issues: Whether contractual employees governed by the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022 can claim service extension beyond 60 years based on administrative circulars.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory rules enacted under the Constitution have primacy over administrative guidelines. Since the Rules of 2022 expressly prohibit the extension of contractual appointments beyond 60 years, the court cannot grant relief contrary to this provision.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks service extension based on circulars despite reaching superannuation age. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. statutory rule 11 of the 2022 rules prohibits extension beyond 60 years. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. statutory provisions prevail over circulars; petition dismissed due to non-compliance with rules. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)

Order

12/05/2026

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with

following prayer:-

“It is therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that

this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be

allowed and by an appropriate writ order or direction:

(A) The impugned communication dated

(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 01:21:14 PM)

(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:26:13 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:20436] (2 of 8) [CW-7932/2026]

24.01.2024 alongwith entire proceeding pursuant

thereto qua the petitioner including his impugned

verbal termination in pursuance of the impugned

order dated 24.01.2024 may kindly be directed to

treat the petitioner to be deemed to be in continuous

contractual service on the post of Jr. Technical

Assistant with the respondent and permit the

petitioner to resume his duties on the said

consequential benefits, more particularly, in the light

of Hon’ble High Court orders.

(B) The action of the respondents while not

extending the services of the petitioner upto 65 years

of age and terminating services of the petitioner on

dated 15.05.2026 despite the fact that the aspirants

of 65 years of age are being considered for

continuing on contractual appointment, may kindly be

declared per se illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the

provisions of Constitution of India and thus,

respondents may kindly be directed to not

terminating service of the petitioner on dated

15.05.2026 on account of he attains age 60 years.

(C) The respondents may kindly be directed to

extend the contractual services of the petitioner upto

65 years of age and permit him to continue his

services on the post of Jr. Technical Assistant in

Panchayat Samiti Govindgarh, District Alwar till he

attains the age of 65 years.

(D) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction

which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper

in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly

be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

initially, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Junior

Technical Assistant under the NREGA Scheme vide order dated

10.05.2008 on a contractual basis, and he joined his duties at

Panchayat Samiti Behror, Alwar. Thereafter, the petitioner was

reappointed vide letter dated 19.04.2023 under the Rajasthan

Contractual Hiring to Civil Post Rules, 2022 and in pursuance

thereto, he joined his duties at Panchayat Samiti Govindgarh on

(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 01:21:14 PM)

(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:26:13 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:20436] (3 of 8) [CW-7932/2026]

21.04.2023. Counsel further submits that at the time of his initial

appointment, the petitioner was 42 years of age and has rendered

contractual services in the respondent Department for a period of

about 18 years. It is further submitted that the petitioner is going

to attain the age of 60 years on 15.05.2026.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the maximum age

prescribed for a Junior Technical Assistant is 65 years and there

exists a provision for extension of services of a Junior Technical

Assistant up to the age of 65 years. Since the petitioner was going

to attain the age of 60 years, he submitted a request before the

respondent-Department seeking extension of his contractual

services on the post of Junior Technical Assistant up to the age of

65 years. However, no heed was paid by the respondent-

Department to the request made by the petitioner for extension of

his services with effect from 15.05.2026 upon his attaining the

age of 60 years.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the action of the

respondent-Department is wholly illegal and arbitrary, inasmuch

as candidates up to the maximum age of 65 years are being

considered for appointment in certain cat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top