[2026:RJ-JP:13231] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5819/2026 Kartik Agarwal S/o Ravindra Agarwal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 72, Prem Vihar Colony, Aklera, Jhalawar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director (Public Health), Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jhalawar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aamir Khan Mr. Ram Pratap Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yashwant Singh for Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 30/03/2026 1. Instant writ petition is filed with following prayer:- “1. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof, the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the services of the petitioners and they be permitted to continue their services on the post of Medical Officer at their place of posting and further not to replace the petitioners by another set up of contractual employees. 2. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Petitioners with cost of the petition.” [2026:RJ-JP:13231] (2 of 3) [CW-5819/2026] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon order dated 03.12.2025 in case of Dr. Aman Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18353/2025 submits that the issue raised herein has already been considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Neha Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14528/2025 and also in case of Dr. Amit Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4231/2025. He further submits that on basis of ratio, this Court has decided the writ petition in case of Dr. Aman Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra). Thus, the instant writ petition may be decided accordingly. 3. Mr. Yashwant Singh on behalf of Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC accepts notice for respondents. 4. Office is directed to reflect the name of Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC as counsel for respondents. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the services of the petitioner were not terminated but the respondents are in process of appointing or posting regularly selected candidate and in case the regularly selected candidate is available and he is posted then the services of the petitioner will be discontinued. 6. Considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 7. The submission of learned counsel indicate that the petitioner is in service and his services has not been terminated though on basis of statement learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is not in employment. In order to [2026:RJ-JP:13231] (3 of 3) [CW-5819/2026] balance equity, this writ petition can be disposed following the ratio as mentioned hereinabove. 8. In view of discussions, the writ petition is disposed with directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on vacant post after accommodating regularly selected candidates. If any of the post is available after appointment/posting of regularly selected candidate then the petitioner shall be considered for appointment or continuing on same post in contractual capacity. The respondents are also under an obligation to ensure that a set of contractual employees shall not be replaced with another set of contractual employees, directly or indirectly, in any manner. 9. With the aforesaid, the writ petitions stand disposed with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /29