The Jodhpur High Court has clarified that temporary appointees in public health services cannot be summarily discharged without first being considered for remaining vacancies. This judgment reinforces the principle of equitable treatment in temporary employment and sets a binding standard for administrative discretion in recurrent recruitment cycles.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Dr. Neetu Panwar, was engaged on an urgent temporary basis as a Medical Officer in a Primary Health Centre (PHC) in Pali district, Rajasthan, pending regular recruitment. She was selected by a District Level Committee constituted under state health policy to address critical staffing shortages. Despite the existence of unfilled regular posts in the same district, the respondents terminated her temporary assignment without considering her for those vacancies.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging:
- The non-consideration of her candidature for remaining vacancies
- The initiation of fresh temporary recruitment while qualified candidates from prior selections remained unemployed
- The arbitrary disengagement without due process
The matter was directly heard by the High Court, with no prior adjudication in lower forums.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- A direction to consider her for any unfilled regular Medical Officer posts in Pali district
- A prohibition on fresh temporary recruitment until all previously disengaged candidates are re-evaluated
- A declaration that her termination violated principles of natural justice and equal opportunity
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the state, having engaged temporary medical officers to fill urgent vacancies, is legally obligated to consider those same candidates for remaining unfilled posts before initiating new rounds of temporary recruitment.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner relied on the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution. He argued that the District Level Committee’s selection process created a reasonable expectation that candidates would be considered for subsequent vacancies in the same district. He cited State of Rajasthan v. Vidyasagar to emphasize that temporary appointments are not mere favors but functional necessities that carry implied obligations.
For the Respondent
The Advocate General contended that temporary appointments are inherently provisional and subject to termination upon regular appointments. He asserted that the state retains unfettered discretion to initiate new recruitment and that no legal right accrues to temporary appointees beyond the term of their engagement. He distinguished Dr. Kamlesh Ghosalya as factually inapplicable.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the state’s argument that temporary appointments carry no implied obligations. It held that when a structured selection process is conducted to address systemic vacancies, the state cannot act arbitrarily by discarding qualified candidates without exploring their suitability for remaining posts.
"The engagement of candidates through a district-level committee implies a commitment to utilize their services until regular appointments are completed. Disengagement without considering them for other unfilled posts in the same district amounts to arbitrariness and violates the principle of equal opportunity."
The Court emphasized that the state’s duty under Article 14 extends beyond formal equality to substantive fairness in public employment. It noted that the existence of unfilled vacancies after regular appointments were made rendered the termination of temporary staff unjustified unless all prior candidates were given a fair opportunity.
The Court further held that merit and length of service must be the criteria for re-engagement, ensuring that the most qualified among the disengaged are prioritized. This approach prevents wastage of public resources and institutionalizes transparency in temporary staffing.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that the state must consider all previously disengaged temporary medical officers for remaining unfilled posts before initiating new temporary recruitment. It directed the respondents to complete this exercise within one month.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Re-engagement Is Not Discretionary
- Practitioners must now argue that temporary appointments under structured selection processes create enforceable expectations
- State departments cannot terminate temporary staff and immediately initiate new recruitment without exhausting the pool of previously selected candidates
- Failure to do so invites writ jurisdiction under Article 14
Merit and Service Duration Are Mandatory Criteria
- Any re-engagement must be based on objective parameters: merit from the original selection and length of prior service
- Arbitrary selection from outside the disengaged pool is now legally impermissible
- Administrative orders must document the rationale for rejecting prior candidates
District-Level Recruitment Pools Are Binding
- Selections made at the district level create a localized pool of eligible candidates
- Vacancies in one PHC cannot be filled from outside the district while qualified candidates from the same selection process remain unemployed
- This prevents regional disparities and ensures equitable distribution of temporary postings
