[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shri Prakash vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 8 April, 2026
Author: Anand Sharma
Bench: Anand Sharma
[2026:RJ-JD:16342]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4361/2026
Shri Prakash S/o Shri Sharwan Kumar Sharma, Aged About 60
Years, Resident Of Ward No. 3 Nohar, Tehsil Nohar District
Hanumangarh, Presently Posted Ayurved Officer, Block Chief
Medical Officer, Pilibanga District Hanumangarh
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Ayurved And Indian Medicines,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Mission Director, National Health Mission, Department
Of Medical, Health, Family Welfare, Swasthya Bhawan,
Jaipur
3. The Joint Director, Medical Health Services Bikaner
4. The Chief Medical Officer, Hanumangarh
5. The Block Chief Medical Officer, Pilibanga, District
Hanumangarh
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ganga Ram, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tananjay Parmar, Adv. for
Mr. Deepak Bora, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
08/04/2026
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,
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 02:46:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16342] (2 of 4) [CW-4361/2026]
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
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 02:46:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16342] (3 of 4) [CW-4361/2026]
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
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 02:46:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16342] (4 of 4) [CW-4361/2026]
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 Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.
Admittedly, the petitioner is not governed by any of the aforesaid
Rules.
11. In the light of above discussion, this Court does not find
any scope of interference in the instant writ petition and same is
hereby dismissed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
73-Jatin
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 02:46:28 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
