[2025:RJ-JP:22117] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18351/2022 Ramesh Sahu S/o Shri Nand Kishor Sahu, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Rajpura Ka Rasta, Bohra Colony, Kekri, District Ajmer 305404 (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 3. Project Director, National Health Mission, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur. 4. Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Ajmer 5. Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society Through Its Member Secretary, Government Hospital Kekri, District Ajmer ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Bhatt for Mr. Tanveer Ahamad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Ms. Sweekirti Sharma Mr. Devang Saini HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 26/05/2025 On 12.05.2025, following order was passed:- "This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent to continue the petitioner's contractual appointment as Nursing Staff. This Court is prima facie of the opinion that unless the contractual appointment is through [2025:RJ-JP:22117] (2 of 4) [CW-18351/2022] the fair and transparent recruitment process wherein, all eligible candidates are given an equal opportunity of participation, the contractual employee has no right to continue. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted time to demonstrate that he was engaged through a recruitment process fair and transparent in nature after inviting applications from open market. List the matter on 19.05.2025 at top of the list as prayed." On the next date, i.e,, 19.05.2025, following order was passed:- "Pursuant to order of this Court dated 12.05.2025, admitting that the petitioner was not engaged through a fair and transparent recruitment process wherein, all eligible persons were given an equal opportunity to participate, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted time to complete his instructions. List the matter on 23.05.2025 at top of the list as prayed." On last date, i.e., 23.05.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for and was granted further time to complete his instructions. Today again, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment. However, no case for adjournment is made out. The prayer is rejected The facts are not in dispute as already observed that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis without following the [2025:RJ-JP:22117] (3 of 4) [CW-18351/2022] fair and transparent recruitment process inviting applications from open market extending equal opportunity of participation to all the eligible candidates. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Piara Singh and Others: MANU/SC/0417/1992, held as under:- "47. Thirdly, even where an ad hoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of administration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause must be stated on the file. If no candidate is available or is not sponsored by the employment exchange, some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words, there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly." Replying upon the aforesaid dictum, this Court has held in the case of Rohitash Verma and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3540/2020 and other connected matters as under:- "A panoramic view of the aforesaid judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also of this Court makes the position clear that a contractual employee appointed without facing a fair/transparent mode of selection, has no right to continue and the principle that no contractual [2025:RJ-JP:22117] (4 of 4) [CW-18351/2022] employee can be replaced by another contractual employee, does not come to his rescue. Indisputably, in the case in hand, the petitioners were hired by the placement agency without following any such fair/transparent procedure of selection and hence, they have no right to continue in service." It may be relevant to mention herein that the aforesaid judgement has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others: D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1040/2021. In the backdrop of aforesaid precedential law and in view of the undisputed factual scenario, the petitioner cannot claim right to continue on contractual appointment till the regularly selected candidate is available. Resultantly this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J PRAGATI/s-331