[2025:RJ-JP:20244] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5571/2025 Umesh Kumar S/o Rohitashwa, Aged 31 Years, Resident Of Village Ismailpur, Tehsil Buhana, Dist. Jhunjhunu(Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Ministry Of Medial And Health And Family Welfare, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. The Principal Medical Officer, Rajkiya Upjila Asptaal Chirawa Dist. Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). 3. The Secretary, Medicare Relief Society, Community Health Center, Chirawa, Dist. Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuj Sharma for Mr. Manoj Sheoran For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 14/05/2025 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the respondents No.2 whereby, contractual services of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Radiographer have been terminated on account of joining of a regular appointee in his place. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting attention of this Court towards the Clause 20 of the agreement dated 31.05.2017 executed in between him and the official respondents, would submit that it is stipulated therein that the contract can be terminated with notice of one month/one month’s [2025:RJ-JP:20244] (2 of 2) [CW-5571/2025] package/contract amount in lieu of notice and since, his contract has been terminated without complying with the aforesaid Clause 20, the order is bad in law. Heard. Considered. The agreement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is for a period of one year, i.e. from 31.05.2017 to 31.03.2018. Clause 2 of the agreement provides that the period of contract can be extended by mutual consent for a period not more than one year at a time but, in no case, it will exceed five years in all or the date on which the MNJY Scheme, under which he was engaged, closes, whichever is earlier. The petitioner has not placed any order extending his contract thereafter. It is trite law that a contractual employee has no right to continue on contract once a regular candidate replaces him/her. Since, in the instant case, contract of the petitioner has been terminated on account of joining of regularly selected candidate, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order notwithstanding Clause 20. Resultantly, this civil writ petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/61