[2026:RJ-JP:9446] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14328/2025 Bhanwar Singh Son Of Shri Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Vpo-Hasanpura, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj). 2. The Director Swachh Bharat Mission (Rural), Panchayati Raj Department, Directorate, Jaipur. 3. The District Collector Cum Chairman Of District, Swachh Bharat Mission (Rural), Sikar. 4. The Chief Executive Officer Cum Member Secretary, District Swachh Bharat Mission, Zila Parishad Sikar. 5. The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Patan, District Sikar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G. S. Gauttam, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prateek Saxena, Adv., Mr. Pranay Sharma, Adv., Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Adv., Ms. Anjali Ranga, Adv. & Mr. Tarun Dhankar, Adv. for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 05/03/2026 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayer:- “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and call for and examine [2026:RJ-JP:9446] (2 of 9) [CW-14328/2025] entire record of the case and by an appropriate writ, order and direction i) That the respondent may kindly be declare illegal and discriminatory action of the respondents by which respondents are going to retire the petitioner on 30.09.2025 on attaining the age of 60 years while the retired persons allowed to work till attaining the age of 65 years by re-engaging on contract basis; ii) Further the Hon’ble Court may kindly be directed to the respondents to allow the petitioner on the post of Block Coordinator at Panchayat Samiti Patan, District Sikar till attaining the age of 65 years; iii) Any other order which this Hon’ble Court deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that although, while appointing the petitioner to the post of Block Coordinator under the Swachh Bharat Mission (Rural) in Panchayati Raj Department in accordance with the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Post Rules, 2022 (for short ‘the Rules of 2022’), there was a clear stipulation in the appointment order dated 28.06.2023 that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue till 31.03.2028, yet petitioner’s services have been terminated immediately on completion of age of 60 years ignoring the circular dated 28.03.2023, which lays down that only such employees shall be considered for re-appointment, who have not completed the age of 65 years. Learned counsel submits that thus, the intention of respondent-Government was clear that they would allow all the contractual employees to continue, post retirement upto the age of 65 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16199/2025 (Geeta Devi Salvi [2026:RJ-JP:9446] (3 of 9) [CW-14328/2025] Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and submits that the Co- ordinate Bench while passing the order dated 03.11.2025 has taken into consideration provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules of 2022 as well as the earlier circulars providing for continuation of contractual employee upto the age of 65 years. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that Rule 11 (1) of Rules of 2022 is quite clear and provides the condition that the contractual appointment shall not be extended beyond the date on which the contractual appointee attains the age of 60 years. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that it is settled proposition of law that if the Rule is explicitly clear then any circular providing contrary to such Rule should be ignored, as the Rule would prevail over any administrative instructions/circular. Learned counsel for the respondents places reliance upon order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1328/2025 (Bhanwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), whereby while dismissing the D.B. Special Appeal, the Division Bench has also given an observation that Rule would prevail over any order or circular issued by the State Government and as per Rule 11 of the Rules of 2022, tenure of contractual appointment cannot be extended beyond the date on which the contractual appointee attains the age of 60 years. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents also refers order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shyamu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12428/2025), where the Co-ordinate Bench has also held that the Rule would prevail and the contractual employee [2026:RJ-JP:9446] (4 of 9) [CW-14328/2025] has got no right to continue after 60 years. Learned counsel for the respondents also clarifies that the appointment order is required to be read in entirety and indicates the condition that the employee shall continue till 31.03.2028/till date of retirement, whichever is earlier and since in the case of the petitioner, his date of retirement was much earlier than 31.03.2028, therefore, respondents have committed no mistake in discontinuing the services of the petitioner immediately on attaining the age of superannuation. Accordingly, the order dated 29.09.2025 has been passed for relieving the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.09.2025. The order dated 29.09.2025 has also been placed on record by learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that his contractual engagement is regulated by the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Post Rules, 2022. Rule 11 of the aforesaid Rules deals with period of contractual appointment and 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 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. [2026:RJ-JP:9446] (5 of 9) [CW-14328/2025] (2) Work assessment of the person hired on contract shall be recorded so that his work may be assessed in case he is to be considered for appointment on contract for the next year. (3) Contract appointment shall stand terminated automatically on expiry of the period of the contract and there shall be no need to issue separate order for terminating the service. 7. Bare reading of aforesaid Rule 11 would make it clear that in no uncertain terms it has been mandated that the contractual appointment shall not be extended beyond the date on which contractual appointee attains the age of 60 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon circular issued by the State Government. It is settled proposition of law that any circular/administrative instructions cannot supplant the Rules, however, can supplement the Rules only under the contingency, where there is no specific rule governing the field. In the instant case, where there is specific rule which has been framed in unambiguous terms providing for not continuing contractual appointment beyond the date on which contractual appointee attains the age of 60 years, any circular or administrative instructions to the contrary cannot prevail. Similar view has been taken by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shyamu (supra), relevant para of the aforesaid order in the case of Shyamu (supra) is being reproduced as under:- “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 fora period not exceeding five years or up to the expiry of the period of scheme/project whichever is earlier, however, if the period of [2026:RJ-JP:9446] (6 of 9) [CW-14328/2025] scheme/project is further extended, the State Government may take decision for renewal of contractual appointment by extending the 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 of60 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 otherwise, the principle of ‘promissory estoppel’ does not operate against statute.” 8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhanwar Singh (supra) was considering the intra-court appeal preferred by the petitioner against ad-interim order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the [2026:RJ-JP:9446] (7 of 9) [CW-14328/2025] present writ petition and while dismissing the appeal following observations have been made by the Division Bench:- “7.This appeal filed on behalf of the appellant deserves to be dismissed for the reasons:- (i)Admittedly, the appellant was given fresh appointment under the Rules of 2022 vide order dated 28.06.2023. According to Rule11 of the Rules of 2022, the contractual appointment shall not be extended beyond the date on which contractual appointee attains the age of 60 years. (ii)The contractual Rules of 2022 have been framed by the State Government under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 8.In our considered view, the Rules of 2022 will prevail over any other order or circular issued by the State Government.” 9. It would be relevant to refer that in the case of Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. Vs. Governor, State of Orissa: (2015) 2 SCC 189, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while meticulously explaining the principle of ‘per incuriam’ has held as under:- “46. Before I consider the correctness of the aforementioned decisions, it would be necessary to elaborate upon the concept of “per incuriam”. The Latin expression “per incuriam” literally means “through inadvertence”. A decision can be said to be given per incuriam when the court of record has acted in ignorance of any previous decision of its own, or a subordinate court has acted in ignorance of a decision of the court of record. As regards the judgments of this Court rendered per incuriam, it cannot be said that this Court has “declared the law” on a given subject-matter, if the relevant law was not duly considered by this Court in its decision. In this regard, I refer to State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. [(1991) 4 SCC 139], wherein R.M. Sahai, J. in his concurring opinion stated as follows : (SCC p. 162, para 40) “40. ‘Incuria’ literally means ‘carelessness’. In practice per incuriam appears to mean per ignoratium. English courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. The ‘quotable in law’ is [2026:RJ-JP:9446] (8 of 9) [CW-14328/2025] avoided and ignored if it is rendered, ‘in ignoratium of a statute or other binding authority’.” 10. In Geeta Devi Salvi (supra), it appears that the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court was not apprised of the earlier order dated 29.08.2025 passed by another Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Shyamu (supra) and therefore, the Co-ordinate Bench while deciding the case of Geeta Devi Salvi (supra) had no occasion to consider the aforesaid order in the case of Shyamu (supra). Thus, it can be observed that since the order dated 03.11.2025 has been passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Geeta Devi Salvi (supra) in bona fide ignorance of earlier order passed by a Single Judge in the case of Shyamu (supra), therefore, the order in the case of Geeta Devi Salvi (supra) is per incuriam and shall not prevail over the order in the case of Shyamu (supra). Moreso, when Division Bench of this Court while deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner himself has given clear cut finding that rule shall prevail over any circular/administrative instructions and since the rule provides for continuance of contractual employee only upto the age of 60 years, therefore, no mistake whatsoever has been committed by the respondent-Government in relieving the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. the age of 60 years. Even the appointment order of the petitioner was conditional in nature and specifically provides that the appointment shall continue till 31.03.2028/till the age of retirement, whichever is earlier and since in the instant case date of retirement of the petitioner was earlier in nature, at this stage, the petitioner cannot raise any plea contrary to his own appointment order. [2026:RJ-JP:9446] (9 of 9) [CW-14328/2025] 11. In view of above, there is no substance in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and same is hereby dismissed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /24