[2025:RJ-JP:5456-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 762/2024 Dr. Jayanth Peddu (@ Peddu Jayanth @ Dr. Peddu Jaynath) S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Rao Peddu, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of D-35, Hari Nagar,shastri Nagar, Jaipur- 16. ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Joint Secretary, Medical Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Director (Medical And Health), Directorate, Medical And Health Services, Jaipur. 4. Principal And Controller, Sms Medical College And Hospital, Jln Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prem Shanker Sharma with Mr. Jitendra Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG with Mr. Sankalp Vijay HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order 07/02/2025 1. Heard. 2. The order passed by learned Single Judge is challenged mainly on the ground that the appellant being a contractual employee appointed at a particular place could not be shifted and this would be patently violative of the terms and conditions of the contract of appointment and therefore, arbitrary. 3. Learned State Counsel on advance copy would submit that the appointment order dated 31.05.2023 in its opening paragraph clearly states that a contractual appointment made on the post for [2025:RJ-JP:5456-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-762/2024] one year or till appointment of regular employee or until further orders of the State Government. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the terms of appointment under clause 4 of the bond could be invoked to transfer only when regularly selected candidate is appointed and the same is not controlled by the general conditions incorporated in the first paragraph of the appointment order, is a matter of construction of a contract. The contract is not a statutory contract. 5. The appointment of appellant is not governed by any statutory rules. Therefore, in such cases, the interference by the Writ Court would be permissible only when there is arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, even though it may be a contractual dispute between the State and individual. 6. Dispute with regard to construction of contract of appointment requires consideration of construction of terms of non-statutory contract and cannot be said to be per se arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is also stated that the appellant has been locally shifted and he has to undergo another four months of the period of the contractual appointment, therefore, no case is made out. 8. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ NAVAL GANDHI-RAHUL/5