[2025:RJ-JP:5422] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2645/2011 Dr. Balvant Singh Parihar Son of Shri Gopi Krishan Parihar, aged about 46 years, resident of 9, Fatehpura, Udaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Medical and health, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Deputy Secretary, Medical Education (Group-I), Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Principal and Controller, Ravindra Nath Tagore Medical College, Udaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Pawan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms.Lipi Garg on behalf of Mr.Archit Bohra, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/02/2025 1. By way of filing of this petition, a prayer has been led to the impugned order dated 03.03.2010 by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Senior Demonstrator in Department of Pathology vide order dated 13.10.2008 and his services were extended from time to time and all of a sudden his services were terminated vide impugned order dated 03.03.2010 and thereafter, the respondents have issued a fresh advertisement on 12.07.2010 for engaging some other person in place of the petitioner. Counsel submits that such action of the respondents is arbitrary, hence [2025:RJ-JP:5422] (2 of 3) [CW-2645/2011] under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents- State opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis for a particular term of six months or till receipt of the regularly selected candidates. Counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed purely on the basis of a contract thereafter, the respondents have initiated a regular selection process by issuing advertisement dated 12.07.2010 and accordingly, the regularly selected candidates have been given appointment, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the appointment order indicates that he was given appointment on contractual basis for a particular term of six months or till receipt of the regularly selected candidates. It appears that due to non-receipt of the regularly selected candidates, the term of the petitioner was extended from time to time and in the meantime, the respondents have initiated the selection process for appointing the regular candidates by issuing the advertisement dated 12.07.2010 and accordingly, a decision was taken to terminate the services of all those candidates who were given contractual appointment for a particular term. 6. Since the respondents have received the regular selected candidates, no cause of action survives with the petitioner to raise any grievance before this Court. The petitioner is bound by the [2025:RJ-JP:5422] (3 of 3) [CW-2645/2011] terms and conditions of the appointment letter. This Court finds no merit and substance in this petition. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /78