[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jitendra Shrimali vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 17 March, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:12572]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5843/2026
1. Jitendra Shrimali S/o Ramesh Chandra Shrimal, Aged
About 27 Years, Resident Of Punawali, Tehsil And
District_Rajsamand.
2. Ramesh Chandra Gameti S/o Gamer Lal, Aged About 32
Years, Resident Of Ghattlai, Negadia, Tehsil_Delwara,
District_Rajsamand.
3. Harshit Shrimali S/o Rohit Kumar Shrimali, Aged About 26
Years, Resident Of Punawali, Tehsil And
District_Rajsamand.
4. Prakash Chandra Jat S/o Chhagan Lal Jat, Aged About 36
Years, Resident Of Hathai Mohalla, Near Satya Narayan
Mandir, Railmagra, District_Rajsamand.
5. Jagdish Chandra Joshi S/o Ratan Lal Joshi, Aged About 28
Years, Resident Of Uthanol, Tehsil_Nathdwara,
District_Rajsamand.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health Services, Secretariat,
Jaipur(Raj.).
2. The Joint Secretary, Medical And Health Services,
Secretariat, Jaipur(Raj.).
3. The Deputy Secretary, Medical And Health Services,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. The Director (Non_Gazetted), Medical, Health And Family
Welfare Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur(Raj.).
5. The District Collector, Rajsamand.
6. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yuvraj Singh
Mr. Shaitan Singh
For Respondent(s) : --
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 05:02:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:47:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12572] (2 of 3) [CW-5843/2026]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
17/03/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue
involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the
judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SBCWP
No.23788/2025 titled as Dr. Amit Chauhan Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors, decided on 15.12.2025.
2. For ready reference, the order dated 22.01.2026 passed in
the case of Dr. Amit Chauhan (supra) is reproduced hereunder:-
"1. The present writ petition is filed challenging the action of the
respondents in not continuing the services of the petitioners to
the post of Medical Officer on Temporary Urgent Basis.
2. The petitioner was initially recruited to the post of Medical
Officer on Urgent Temporary Basis by way of contract and the
terms of contract clearly indicate that any such an appointments
are made subject to one year or till the regular appointments are
made, whichever is earlier. Subsequently, by order dated
11.04.2025, the employment of the petitioner was extended till
30.09.2025, and thereafter, there was no extension order,
therefore, he has filed the present writ petition.
3. The case of the State is that the very contract is for an
engagement for one year or till the regular appointments are
made, whichever is earlier and their services were not further
extended for the reason that a regular recruitment to the post of
Medical Officer has already been done and posted. Therefore, the
petitioner has no vested right to continue after the regular
appointments are made to the post of Medical Officer.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submitted
that the engagement of Medical Officer through regular
recruitment is already done and he has no vested right to seek
continuation on such post, where the appointments are made
regularly; however, the respondents may sympathetically
consider their case for re-engagement on the vacant post, which
are unfilled with regular recruitment and such a vacant post also
be filled basing on the merit as well as period of experience of
the candidates, who were being disengaged by virtue of regular
appointments.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the
respondent- Authority decided to fill-up any unfilled vacancies,
which are available after filling up of the regular vacancies, the
case for reengaging the persons may be considered
sympathetically including the case of the petitioner for re-
engagement on the vacant/unfilled post subject to merit and
period of experience among the candidates.
6. The terms of the contract clearly indicate that their
appointment is on Temporary Basis and for a fixed period or
happening of certain eventuality of regular appointments. Since
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 05:02:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12572] (3 of 3) [CW-5843/2026]
the very discontinuation is based on the regular appointments,
the petitioner has no vested right to continue work on the post of
Medical Officer for the reason that he has appointed on
Temporary Urgent Basis, however, when the respondents seek to
re-employ in the vacant post of Medical Officer after regular
recruitment, the case of the petitioner or others are required to
be considered sympathetically.
7. In the above factual facts and circumstances of the case and
contentions of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with
the directions to the respondents to consider the case of the
petitioner and other persons if any in the vacant post of Medical
Officer on Urgent Temporary Basis, their services are required to
be considered subject to same terms and conditions and the said
consideration shall be based on period of experience and merit.
8. Pending applications, if any stand disposed of."
3. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of
in same terms and with same directions as given in the case of Dr.
Amit Chauhan (supra). The respondents are directed to consider
the case of the petitioner and other persons if any in the vacant
post of Nursing Officer on Urgent Temporary Basis, their services
are required to be considered subject to same terms and
conditions and the said consideration shall be based on period of
experience and merit.
4. Pending applications, if any stand disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
27-sonia/-
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 05:02:39 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
