[2025:RJ-JP:34602] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12428/2025 Shyamu S/o Late Shri Ramdayal, Resident Of Block Chief Medical Officers Office, New Dak Bangla, Ajmer Road, Kekri. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Government, Department Of Medical And Health, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Mission Director, National Health Mission, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Ajmer. 4. Block Chief Medical Officer, Department Of Medical And Health, Government Of Rajasthan, Kekri. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.V. Nandwana with Mr. Y.V. Nandwana For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 29/08/2025 This writ petition is filed seeking a direction not to retire the petitioner on 10.09.2025 and to permit him to continue till 25.05.2028. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Block Programme Manager on contractual basis by the respondents vide order dated 07.01.2010. The post, later on, was re-designated as Block Programme Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Block Programme Officer under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, [2025:RJ-JP:34602] (2 of 4) [CW-12428/2025] 2022 (for short, ‘Rules of 2022’) whereupon, after his selection, he was appointed as such vide order dated 15.05.2023. Vide letter dated 22.05.2025 issued by the respondent no.4 addressed to the respondent no.3-the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Ajmer, a request was made to retire the petitioner with effect from 10.09.2025 on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., 60 years. Assailing his proposed retirement on 10.09.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting attention of this Court towards the condition in the appointment order dated 15.05.2023 which provides that his contractual appointment shall stand terminated on 25.05.2028, submits that it is not open for the respondents to retire him prior to 25.05.2028 in violation of the terms of appointment order. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the respondents be restrained from retiring him with effect from 10.09.2025 and be directed to permit him to continue till 25.05.2028. Heard. Considered. Indisputably, the petitioner has been appointed under the Rules of 2022, the relevant provision of Rule 11A whereof, reads as under: 11. Period of contractual appointment.- (1) On the posts created under these rules, first contractual appointment shall be made for a period not exceeding five years or up to the expiry of the period of scheme/project whichever is earlier, however, if the period of scheme/project is further extended, the State Government may take decision for renewal of contractual appointment by extending the [2025:RJ-JP:34602] (3 of 4) [CW-12428/2025] period of contractual appointment for 3 years at a time depending on the necessity of the contractual employees and after assessing suitability of person appointed on contract. The contractual appointment shall not be extended beyond the date on which contractual appointee attains the age of 60 years.” Thus, from the aforesaid provision, it is clear that in no case, the contractual appointment shall be extended beyond the date on which the contractual employee attains the age of 60 years. Indisputably, the petitioner shall attain the age of 60 years, i.e., age of superannuation, on 10.09.2025. In view thereof, this Court finds no illegality in the decision taken by the respondents in retiring the petitioner on the date he attains the age of 60 years. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner based on the terms of the appointment order dated 15.05.2023 does not merit acceptance inasmuch as the period of the contractual employment mentioned therein, i.e., 25.05.2028 appears to be an inadvertent error on account of the provisions contained under Rule 11(1) which provide that the first contractual appointment shall be made for a period not exceeding five years or up to the expiry of the period of scheme/project whichever is earlier, oblivious of the fact that he would attain the age of superannuation much prior to the expiry of the period of five years from the date of appointment. The holistic and harmonious reading and interpretation of the provisions of Rule 11 gives rise to an unquestionable position that in no case, the contractual appointment of an appointee under the Rules of 2022 can be extended beyond the age of 60 years. Even [2025:RJ-JP:34602] (4 of 4) [CW-12428/2025] otherwise, the principle of ‘promissory estoppel’ does not operate against statute. In view thereof, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J DIKSHA /40