[2026:RJ-JP:23882] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1715/2003 URN: CW / 2457U / 2003 Ajit Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Madan Singh Shekhawat, aged about 31 years, resident of Naruka Colony, near Devipura Basant Vihar Ward No.18, Jaipur Road, Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus 1.State of Rajasthan – through Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Literacy & Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. District Literacy & Education Officer, Collectorate, Sikar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kashyap. For Respondent(s) : None. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 30/06/2026 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and the impugned termination order dated 16.07.2002 passed by the respondents may kindly be declared illegal, unjust and act of unfair labour practice and same may be quashed and set aside and respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Steno (English) with all consequential benefits. Any other order or directions which this Hon’ble Court may think just and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” [2026:RJ-JP:23882] (2 of 2) [CW-1715/2003] Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents terminated his services vide order dated 16.07.2002. I have perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on a contractual basis in the year 2000 and the respondents terminated his services on the ground that his services were no longer required. The petitioner has not placed on record the terms and conditions governing his contractual appointment. In the considered opinion of this Court that the services of a contractual employee are governed by the terms and conditions contained in the appointment order and the contract of employment. A contractual employee does not acquire a vested right to continue in service beyond the period of the contract or to seek continuation contrary to the terms of the contractual engagement. In view of the above, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J MG/20