[2025:RJ-JP:18782-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6006/2025 Dr. Vinod Kumar, S/o Shri Ramkaran, Age 60 Years, R/o Ward No. 7, Birkali, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan-335523 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Government Secretariate, 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, Hanumangarh. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sahil Duseja Advocate on behalf of Mr. Arpit Jain Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Vigyan Shah Additional Advocate General with Mr. Sankalp Vijay Advocate and Ms. Ritika Narula Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 05/05/2025 1. Heard. 2. Challenge has been laid to the constitutional validity of sub- rule (1) of Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Post Rules, 2022 insofar as it relates to upper age of contractual appointment. [2025:RJ-JP:18782-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-6006/2025] 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 [2025:RJ-JP:18782-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-6006/2025] 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. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ MANOJ NARWANI-GARIMA/13