Banshi Lal Regar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:12921)
2026 Latest Caselaw 4116 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 4116 Raj
Judgement Date : 18 March, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Banshi Lal Regar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:12921) on 18 March, 2026

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:12921]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15366/2025

Banshi Lal Regar S/o Shri Mangi Lal Regar, Aged About 60 Years,
Resident Of Village Kared, Post Badla, District Bhilwara, Presently
Serving As Kanishth Shikshak (Junior Teacher) On Contract Basis
At Govt. Senior Secondary School, Badla (Kotri), District
Bhilwara (Raj.).
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
         Elementary Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3.       Chief District Education Officer, Samagra Shiksha, District
         Bhilwara.
4.       District    Education      Officer,      Elementary        (Headquarter),
         Bhilwara.
5.       Chief Block Education Officer, Samagra Shiksha, Kotir,
         District Bhilwara.
6.       Panchayat Elementary Education Officer (P.e.e.o.), Govt.
         Senior Secondary School, Badla (Kotri), District Bhilwara.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Dinesh Chandra Mali
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, AGC
                                  Mr. Digvijay Sodha


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

18/03/2026

By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has

prayed for the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction; and

(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, not terminate/compulsory retire the Petitioner on attaining the age of 60 years as on 15.08.2025 and allow him to continue

(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 05:28:15 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12921] (2 of 3) [CW-15366/2025]

in service till the age of 65 years, in terms of the Circular dated 11.07.2017 (Annexure-6)

(ii) Declare that the action of the Respondents in issuing a verbal order of termination/compulsory retirement of the Petitioner at the age of 60 years is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

(iii) or Any other appropriate writ, order direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Petitioner."

2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon

perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that

the petitioner was appointed on a contractual basis to the post of

'Pathshala Sahayak' under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to

Civil Post Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules,

2022"), vide order dated 15.02.2023.

3. According to the petitioner, the appointment order dated

15.02.2023 contained a specific stipulation that his contractual

appointment would be for a period of five years, i.e., up to

15.02.2028. However, the respondents, without assigning any

reasons or justification, decided to discontinue his services on the

ground that, in terms of Rule 11 of the Rules, 2022, he cannot be

permitted to continue beyond the age of 60 years.

4. Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Post

Rules, 2022 is reproduced below for ready reference:--

"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

(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 05:28:15 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12921] (3 of 3) [CW-15366/2025]

on which contractual appointee attains the age of 60 years.

(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.

(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."

5. Upon consideration of the aforesaid Rule 11 of the Rules,

2022, this Court has no hesitation in concluding that even if the

appointment order dated 15.02.2023 stipulates continuation up to

15.02.2028, the petitioner cannot continue in service beyond the

age of 60 years, as expressly mandated under Rule 11. Any

condition in an appointment order contrary to statutory rules

cannot override such statutory provisions. No mandamus can be

issued directing the respondents to act in contravention of the

Rules, 2022, by permitting the petitioner to continue in service

beyond the age of 60 years.

6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit

in the present writ petition, and the same is accordingly