[2025:RJ-JP:37430] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5266/2011 Ravindra Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Hanuman Singh Shekhawat, aged about 39 years, R/p Sultana via Ardawta, Tehsil Chidawa, Distrcit Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State through Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Forest Department, Van Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 2. Deputy Conservator of Forests, Jaipur North, Forest Department, Pani Pech, Jaipur. 3. Rajasthan State through Secretary Forest Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.R. Chaudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Singh, Dy. G.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 15/09/2025 1. Aggrieved by order dated 31.01.2011, whereby the contract executed by the petitioner and respondent-Department on 31.01.2011 was rescinded, and on account of recission in the contract, the services of petitioner were terminated, the petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an Ex-serviceman and was appointed as Forest Guard on contract basis pursuant to advertisement dated 13.07.2007 issued by the respondent-Forest Department. It is submitted that [2025:RJ-JP:37430] (2 of 4) [CW-5266/2011] initially the contract was of one year, yet there was specific condition in the contract that one month's notice or pay in lieu notice shall be given to the petitioner prior to the termination of his services. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the initial contract was extended from time to time and lastly on 22.09.2010, which was up to 21.09.2011. Yet, during the currency of contract, all of a sudden without giving any opportunity of hearing or without serving any notice, order dated 31.01.2011 was issued, whereby contract was terminated along with services of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thus, the order dated 31.01.2011 has been passed by the respondent in flagrant violation of Principal of Natural Justice as well as in violation of terms of contract. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that lastly contract with the petitioner was renewed on 22.09.2010, in which there was a specific condition that the contract shall not be extended after the terms of contract and shall be valid upto 21.09.2011 or till the availability of regularly selected candidates, whichever was earlier. The respondents initiated process for regular selection for appointment of Forest Guard vide letter dated 23.08.2010 and after following the process, vide order dated 24.03.2011, as many as 12 regular Forest Guards were appointed. Thus, in the light of terms of the contract where service of the petitioner was either till completion of the contract or till regularity of regularly selected candidates, the respondents have committed no mistake in terminating the [2025:RJ-JP:37430] (3 of 4) [CW-5266/2011] contractual services of the petitioner on availability of regularly selected candidates. 6. It has been submitted that where terms of the contract were explicitly clear, there was no requirement to issue any notice before terminating the services of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has also indicated that vide order dated 29.03.2011, as many as services of six other Forest Guards earlier appointed on contractual basis have also been terminated. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the petitioner was not holding the post of Forest Guard substantively and he cannot claim any right better than the rights conferred upon him by the contract. 9. Heard and considered. 10. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was holding the post on contractual basis, subject to terms and conditions of the contract. He was never appointed on substantive basis in accordance with the Rules and thus, was not holding the substantive post. 11. Bare perusal of the renewed contract dated 22.09.2010 makes it absolutely clear that although the contract earlier executed to the petitioner was extended up to 21.09.2011, yet there was a specific condition in the renewed contract that the services of the petitioner would be either till the completion of the contract or till availability of regularly selected candidates. 12. Respondents have placed on record the order dated 24.03.2011, whereby regularly selected Forest Guards have also been appointed by the respondent-Department, hence, the [2025:RJ-JP:37430] (4 of 4) [CW-5266/2011] petitioner who was simply holding the post on contractual basis has no right to continue on the same post on availability of regularly selected candidates. It is also not a case of the petitioner that he has been singled out as the other six similar situated persons who are also holding the post on contractual basis have been treated with similar result. 13. In the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court can examine the grievance of the person regarding the violation of statutory Rules or fundamental rights. In the instant case, where rights of the petitioner were regulated by the contract and the contract has been terminated in accordance with the terms of the contract itself, there is no scope for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner fails and stands dismissed. 15. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J Daksh-Jatin/1