[2025:RJ-JP:30502] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9050/2002 1. Hemlata W/o Shri Lakhan Lal Mali R/o Khohari Tehsil Karauli (Rajasthan). 2. Munni Devi W/o Ghamandi R/o Pahadpura District Karauli (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Government of Rajasthan through Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Medical & Health Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Chairman, District Reproductive and Child Health Committee, Karauli, District Karauli 4. Member Secretary, District Reproductive and Special Health Officer, Karauli, District Karauli (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 07/08/2025 1. Petitioners have filed the instant petition challenging order dated 28.11.2002 passed by the Member Secretary, District Reproductive & Child Health Committee, Karauli (Rajasthan) whereby the petitioners have been terminated from their services. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed vide contract letter dated 22.01.2002, wherein it was mentioned that tenure of their appointment shall be of one year and in case, the employer intends to terminate the services of the petitioners then one months' notice shall be given. [2025:RJ-JP:30502] (2 of 3) [CW-9050/2002] Grievance of the petitioners is that before terminating the services of the petitioners vide order dated 28.11.2002, no notice whatsoever was given by the respondents. 3. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents in which it was mentioned that the petitioners were appointed under one special Scheme introduced by the respondent-Department and the appointment was subjected to continuance of the Scheme. However, the Director (Family Welfare) informed vide letter dated 02.11.2002 that the State Government has decided that the Scheme should be discontinued w.e.f. 01.12.2002 and all such contracts with NGO for hiring of Sahikas should not continue beyond 30.11.2002 and be terminated before 30.11.2002. 4. Accordingly, in the light of directions given by the State Government and on account of discontinuation of the Scheme under which the petitioners were appointed, services of petitioners have been rightly terminated. 5. I have considered the record and heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. Admittedly, the petitioners were never appointed after following due procedure for regular appointment and rather the appointment given to the petitioners was on contractual basis. Condition No.4 of the appointment letter dated 21.02.2002 itself would make it clear that in the eventuality of completion of a Scheme/Project, the services of the petitioners shall automatically stand terminated. [2025:RJ-JP:30502] (3 of 3) [CW-9050/2002] 7. In the reply to the writ petition, petitioners have clarified that the Scheme, under which the petitioners were appointed, was discontinued by the State Government. 8. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit and substance in the present petition filed by the petitioners and the same is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/32