[2026:RJ-JP:20437] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7933/2026 Sunil Kumar Jain S/o Shri Shikhar Chand Jain, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 3/324 Kala Kua, Aravali Vihar, Housing Board, Alwar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personel Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.). 3. The Director, Rural Development And Panchyati Raj Department (National Rural Employment Program), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.) 4. The Additional District Programme Coordinator And Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar (Raj.). 5. The District Collector-Cum District Programme Coordinator,(Egs), Alwar (Raj.). 6. The Development Officer-Cum-Programme Coordinator, Panchayat Samiti Ramgarh, District Alwar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajender Prasad Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prateek Saxena, AAAG for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 12/05/2026 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayer:- “It is therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ order or direction: [2026:RJ-JP:20437] (2 of 8) [CW-7933/2026] (A) the action of the respondents while not extending the services of the petitioner upto 65 years of age and terminating services of the petitioner on dated 01.07.2026 despite the fact that the aspirants of 65 years of age are being considered for continuing on contractual appointment, may kindly be declared per se illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Constitution of India and thus, respondents may kindly be directed to not terminating service of the petitioner on dated 01.07.2026 on account of he attains age 60 years. (B) The respondents may kindly be directed to extend the contractual services of the petitioner upto 65 years of age and permit him to continue his services on the post of Jr. Technical Assistant in Panchayat Samiti Ramgarh, District Alwar till he attains the age of 65 years. (C) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that initially, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Junior Technical Assistant under the NREGA Scheme vide order dated 26.03.2008 on a contractual basis, and he joined his duties at Panchayat Samiti Laxmangarh, Alwar. Counsel further submits that at the time of his initial appointment, the petitioner was 42 years of age and has rendered contractual services in the respondent Department for a period of about 18 years. It is further submitted that the petitioner is going to attain the age of 60 years on 01.07.2026. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the maximum age prescribed for a Junior Technical Assistant is 65 years and there exists a provision for extension of services of a Junior Technical Assistant up to the age of 65 years. Since the petitioner was going [2026:RJ-JP:20437] (3 of 8) [CW-7933/2026] to attain the age of 60 years, he submitted a request before the respondent-Department seeking extension of his contractual services on the post of Junior Technical Assistant up to the age of 65 years. However, no heed was paid by the respondent- Department to the request made by the petitioner for extension of his services with effect from 01.07.2026 upon his attaining the age of 60 years. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the action of the respondent-Department is wholly illegal and arbitrary, inasmuch as candidates up to the maximum age of 65 years are being considered for appointment in certain categories of service under the same Scheme. Counsel therefore, submits that the petitioner may be allowed to continue after attaining the age of 60 years, in terms of 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 further submits that thus, the intention of respondent-Department was clear that they would allow all the contractual employees to continue, post retirement upto the age of 65 years. Learned counsel also relies upon the order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16199/2025 (Geeta Devi Salvi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and submits that the coordinate Bench while passing the order dated 03.11.2025 has taken into consideration provisions of Section 11 of the Rules of 2022 as well as the earlier circulars providing for continuation of contractual employee upto the age of 65 years. [2026:RJ-JP:20437] (4 of 8) [CW-7933/2026] 5. I have considered the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Jr. Technical Assistant on contractual basis under NREGA Scheme and the services of the petitioner governs under the provisions of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022 (for shot “Rules of 2022). Rule 11 of the aforesaid rules 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. (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. It is settled proposition of law that any circular/administrative [2026:RJ-JP:20437] (5 of 8) [CW-7933/2026] instructions/guideline 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 v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.12428/2025), relevant para of the aforesaid order 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 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. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:20437] (6 of 8) [CW-7933/2026] 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 Rule11(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 Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhanwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1328/2025), made the following observations:- “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 Rule 11 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.” [2026:RJ-JP:20437] (7 of 8) [CW-7933/2026] 9. It would be relevant to refer that in the case of Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. 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 avoided and ignored if it is rendered, ‘in ignoratium of a statute or other binding authority’.” 10. In backdrop of the above discussion, especially the fact that while dealing with the identical issue, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has clearly observed that the contractual Rules of 2022 shall prevail over any circular/administrative instructions. Since, the rule provides for continuance of contractual employee only upto the age of 60 years, therefore, no error whatsoever has been committed by the respondent-Department in not entertaining the prayer of the petitioner for extension of his [2026:RJ-JP:20437] (8 of 8) [CW-7933/2026] services after attaining the age of superannuation i.e., the age of 60 years. 11. Accordingly, this Court does not find any substance in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and same is hereby dismissed. 12. The stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Manoj Solanki /-19