[2025:RJ-JP:7705] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8750/2012 Dr. Sulakshana Sharma, aged about 40 years, wife of Shri Rakesh Sharma, R/o 5-C-14, Talwandi, Kota. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Commissioner, College Education, Government of Rajasthan, “Shiksha Sankul”, JLN Marg, Jaipur 3. Principal, Government College, Bundi 4. University Grants Commission, through its Secretary, Bashadur Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Singh, Dy.GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 20/02/2025 1. By way of filing of the instant writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 30.04.2012 by which the services of the petitioner has been discontinued from the post of Lecturer. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted contractual employment but the respondents wanted to replace him by engaging another set of contractual employees. Counsel submits that respondents could not pass the order impugned, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. [2025:RJ-JP:7705] (2 of 3) [CW-8750/2012] 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was granted temporary appointment for a particular time, till the availability of the regularly selected candidates and immediately after receipt of the regularly selected candidates, the services of the petitioner were discontinued vide impugned order dated 30.04.2012. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief and the instant writ petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the appointment order of the petitioner indicates that a short term appointment was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 01.09.2011. In the aforesaid order of appointment, it was specified that after receipt of the regularly selected candidates, his appointment would came to an end automatically on 30.04.2012. 6. The impugned order indicates that the appointment order of the petitioner was for a fixed term till 30.04.2012. On completion of her tenure of the academic session i.e. on 30.04.2012, the petitioner was relieved. 7. It is a settled proposition of law that the contractual/temporary appointee has no right to continue after expiry of the period of his/her term. The respondents have not caused any illegality in passing the order impugned which warranted any interference of this Court. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing of instant [2025:RJ-JP:7705] (3 of 3) [CW-8750/2012] petition wherein an interim order passed by this Court on 10.07.2012 by which the respondents were directed not to replace the petitioner from another set of employee with the same nature of appointment. It was also observed that if the respondents are in need of any substitute lecturer, the petitioner may be continued till regular incumbent continues on leave. 9. As per the document (Annex-R-1) enclosed with the reply which indicates that after passing of the aforesaid order, the regular incumbent have joined their services, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue and accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. 10. Stay application as well as all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Garima/70