[2025:RJ-JP:32139-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5964/2025 Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri Kiran Chand Sharma, Age 59 Years, R/o Purohit Ji Ki Dhani, Near Railway Phatak No. -3, Sikar-332001. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 3. Mission Director, National Health Mission (NHM), Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 5. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Sikar. 6. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Ayurveda (Ayush), Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sahil Duseja for Mr. Arpit Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG with Mr. Yash Joshi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 18/08/2025 1. Learned counsel clearly states that the issue stands finally adjudicated by a Co-ordiante Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition NO.6006/2025: Dr. Vinod Kumar VS. State of [2025:RJ-JP:32139-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-5964/2025] Rajasthan and Ors. decided on 05.05.2025, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench has held as under: "3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though this Court in the case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. C.W.P. No.13496/2021 and other connected matter decided on 13.07.2022) has held that the age of retirement of Ayurvedic doctors has to be up to 62 years, insofar as upper age limit of contractual appointment is concerned, the same has not been changed by the State. The submission is that contractual appointees are also entitled to continue in contractual appointment up to the age of retirement provided for regular Ayurvedic doctors. Therefore, the provision be declared ultra vires being manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently, termination order of the petitioner be also set aside. 4. We are afraid, the present petition lacks any merit. 5. Prescription of upper age limit for contractual appointment is in the realm of policy of the State. Up to what age, for what period and on what terms and conditions, contractual appointments are to be made and continued has to be decided only by the rule making authority. The challenge to the prescription that the contractual appointment may be extended only up to 60 years is essentially based on claim of parity with the regular Avyuvedic doctors. In our considered opinion, no parity can be claimed by a contractual employee with regard to terms and conditions of service as are prescribed for a regular employee. The purpose and object of contractual appointment is entirely different. It is only to cope up with emergent situation when the regular posts have not been filled up. A contractual appointee cannot claim that the upper age limit up to which a contractual appointment could continue should exactly be similar as the age of superannuation of a regular employee. The very basis of the claim of the petitioner has no legs to stand. It cannot be said to be a case of arbitrary classification so as to violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. This writ petition is misconceived and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:32139-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-5964/2025] 2. In view of the above judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), the present petition stands dismissed mutatis mutandis. 3. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J GAURAV/AVINASH/43