The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has clarified that temporary contractual appointments under fixed-term conditions do not create a vested right to continued service once regular recruitment is completed. However, the Court directed the state to consider petitioners for re-engagement in unfilled vacancies based on merit and experience, establishing a procedural obligation for sympathetic evaluation.
The Verdict
The petitioners, temporary Medical Officers appointed on fixed-term contracts, lost their claim to automatic continuation after regular appointments were made. The Court held that their employment was governed by contractual terms limiting tenure to one year or until regular appointments were filled, whichever came first. No vested right arose from temporary service. However, the Court directed the state to consider the petitioners for re-engagement in any remaining unfilled vacancies, based on merit and length of prior service.
Background & Facts
The four petitioners were appointed as Medical Officers on Temporary Urgent Basis under contractual terms specifying that their engagement would last for one year or until regular appointments were made, whichever occurred earlier. Their initial appointments were renewed once, extending their tenure until 30 September 2025. No further extension was granted after that date.
The State contended that regular recruitment for the post had been completed and filled, thereby triggering the contractual condition for termination of temporary appointments. The petitioners, while acknowledging the absence of a vested right to continue, requested that the State consider them for re-engagement in any unfilled vacancies arising after regular appointments, citing their experience and prior service.
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking continuation of their services. The State opposed the petition on the ground that contractual terms were clear and binding, and no legal obligation existed to retain temporary staff once regular appointments were made.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether temporary contractual appointments under a fixed-term contract, explicitly conditioned on the occurrence of regular recruitment, create a vested right to continued employment after such recruitment is completed. If not, does the State have any obligation to consider such temporary employees for re-engagement in unfilled vacancies?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
Learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that no vested right arose from temporary contractual service, as the terms of engagement explicitly limited tenure to the period before regular appointments. However, they urged the Court to direct the State to consider the petitioners for re-engagement in any remaining unfilled vacancies. They argued that fairness, equity, and the principle of reasonable classification required that experience and merit be taken into account when filling such vacancies, especially since the petitioners had already rendered service under similar conditions.
For the Respondent
The State’s counsel agreed that while the petitioners had no legal right to continuation, the authorities could, in their discretion, consider their re-engagement in unfilled posts. The State did not oppose the idea of sympathetic consideration but maintained that no legal mandate compelled such action. The counsel emphasized that filling vacancies remained a policy decision subject to administrative discretion and merit-based selection.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the express terms of the appointment letters, which clearly stated that the engagement was temporary and subject to termination upon the filling of regular posts. The Court held that such contractual conditions are binding and cannot be overridden by claims of equity or expectation. The petitioners were aware of the limited nature of their appointments from the outset.
"The terms of the contract clearly indicate that their appointment is on Temporary Basis and for a fixed period or happening of certain eventuality of regular appointments. Since the very discontinuation is based on the regular appointments, the petitioners have no vested right to continue work on the post of Medical Officer."
The Court further noted that while the State was under no legal obligation to re-employ the petitioners, the principles of administrative fairness and the constitutional value of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 required that the State not ignore the experience and service rendered by these individuals. The Court emphasized that the State’s discretion, though unfettered in law, must be exercised reasonably and not in a manner that disregards prior service.
The Court directed the State to consider the petitioners, along with any other similarly situated temporary employees, for re-engagement in any unfilled vacancies for the post of Medical Officer. The consideration must be based on two objective criteria: merit and period of prior experience. The Court made it clear that this was not a direction to appoint, but a directive to evaluate fairly under the same terms and conditions as the original temporary appointments.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment establishes a critical distinction between vested rights and sympathetic consideration in temporary public employment. Practitioners handling service law matters must now recognize that fixed-term contractual appointments, even when repeatedly renewed, do not generate a legal entitlement to continuation once the triggering condition (regular recruitment) occurs. This principle applies across all government departments, not just health services.
However, the judgment introduces a new procedural standard: when unfilled vacancies exist after regular recruitment, authorities must conduct a documented, merit-based review of prior temporary employees. Failure to do so may expose administrative decisions to challenge under Article 14 for arbitrariness. This creates a duty to record reasons for rejection if temporary employees are not considered.
The ruling does not mandate re-employment, nor does it create a quota. It only requires that such candidates be given a fair, objective, and documented opportunity to compete for remaining vacancies. Future litigants may cite this case to compel administrative transparency in filling temporary posts, particularly in sectors with chronic staffing shortages.
