Dismissed¶¶37

Mamanram Son of Shri Matadeen v. State of Rajasthan

Contractual appointment – Vidhyalay Sahayak – five-year term cut short at age 60

Rajasthan HC19 Mar 2025CW/6470/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6470/2023, decided 19/03/2025 by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand — Mamanram v. State of Rajasthan — contractual appointment as Vidhyalay Sahayak for five years; termination on attaining age of superannuation (60 years); Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022; automatic termination on expiry of contract period; no continuance of contract beyond 60 years; writ petition and stay application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Perusal of Rule 11 of the Rules of 2022 indicates that a contractual appointment shall not be extended beyond the date on which the contractual appointee attains the age of 60 years. ¶¶32

Mamanram Son of Shri Matadeen Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:12458]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6470/2023

¶4

Mamanram Son of Shri Matadeen, aged about 60 Years, Resident of Village Badli, Post Ranoth, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

District Education Officer (Head Quarter), Elementary Education, Alwar (Raj.)

¶9

Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Khareta (Mundawar) Alwar (Raj.)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Parmanand Paliwal
	Ms. Saroj Singh Mr. Ghanshyam Maharda
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Saumil Sharma for
	Mr. G.K.Sharma-AGC

¶12

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

19/03/2025

¶15

By way of filling this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned orders dated 17.04.2023 (Annexure-4) and 19.04.2023 (Annexure-5) passed by the respondents by which the contractual employment of the petitioner has been deemed to be treated as terminated at the age of 60 years.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner submits that contractual appointment was given to the petitioner on the post of Vidhyalay Sahayak for a period of five years vide order dated 17.02.2023. Counsel submits that the term of contract was five years but

[2025:RJ-JP:12458]

[CW-6470/2023]

(2 of 4)

before completion of the same within two months, his services have been discontinued vide impugned orders dated 17.04.2023 and 19.04.2023. Counsel submits that once contractual appointment was granted to the petitioner for a period of five years, the respondents were duty bound to take his services for the aforesaid period, hence, under these circumstances, the orders impugned passed by the respondents are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶21

Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the impugned orders dated 17.04.2023 and 19.04.2023 have been passed in terms of Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2022’). Counsel submits that looking to the fact that the petitioner has attained the age of 60 years on 10.04.2023, hence his contract was treated as complete on the said date i.e. on 10.04.2023, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶22

Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that along with several persons, the petitioner was also granted contractual appointment on the post of Vidhyalay Sahayak for a period of five years. This fact is not in dispute that the date of birth of the petitioner is 10.04.1963 and this fact is also not in dispute that he has completed 60 years of age on 10.04.2023.

¶23

Now the question which remains for consideration before this Court is whether the contractual appointment can be granted to

[2025:RJ-JP:12458]

[CW-6470/2023]

(3 of 4)

the petitioner beyond the provisions prescribed under Rule 11 of the Rules of 2022.

¶28

For ready reference Rule 11 of the Rules of 2022 is quoted as under:-

¶29

“11. Period of contractual appointment.- (1) On the posts created under these rules, first contractual appointment shall be made for a period not exceeding five years or up to the expiry of the period of scheme/project whichever is earlier, however, if the period of scheme/project is further extended, the State Government may take decision for renewal of contractual appointment by extending the period of contractual appointment for 3 years at a time depending on the necessity of the contractual employees and after assessing suitability of person appointed on contract, The contractual appointment shall not be extended beyond the date on which contractual appointee attains the age of 60 years.

¶30

(2) Work assessment of the person hired on contract shall be recorded so that his work may be assessed in case he is to be considered for appointment on contract for the next year.

¶31

(3) Contract appointment shall stand terminated automatically on expiry of the period of the contract and there shall be no need to issue separate order for terminating the service.”

¶32

Perusal of the aforesaid Rule indicates that the contractual appointment shall not be extended beyond the date on which contractual appointee attains the age of 60 years. Herein the instant case, the petitioner has attained the age of 60 years on

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:12458]

[CW-6470/2023]

10.04.2023, hence, in view of the rider contained under Rule 11 of the Rules of 2022, his contractual appointment cannot be allowed to continue beyond the age of 60 years. The respondents have not caused any illegality in passing the impugned orders, which requires any interference of this Court.

¶37

This Court finds no merit and substance in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶38

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.

¶39

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶40

Ashu/107

Mamanram Son of Shri Matadeen v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamanram Son of Shri Matadeen v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Shri Shivprashad S/O Shri Amarchand

Lokesh Sharma Son of Shri Abhay Nath Ji Vs the Union of India

Amolak Sain Vs U P Van Sanrakshak Andanr

Suresh Kumar S/O Shri Keshar Dev Vs State of Rajasthan

C M R S R T C Vs Shri Chunnilal Lrs Andanr

Kaushal Kishor Mandawat Son of Shri Baksuram Mandavat Vs State of Rajasthan