The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that temporary contractual appointments in public health services do not confer any vested right to continuation once regular recruitment is completed. This ruling reinforces the distinction between ad hoc engagements and permanent posts under constitutional service norms, offering critical guidance for state employers and temporary employees alike.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Dr. Mohammad Vasim Ansari was appointed as a Medical Officer on an Urgent Temporary Basis under a contract that explicitly stated the tenure would last either one year or until regular appointments were made, whichever came first. His initial contract was extended until 30 September 2025, after which no further extension was granted. The respondents terminated his services upon completion of regular recruitment for the same post, prompting the petitioner to challenge the discontinuation as arbitrary and unfair.
Procedural History
- 2024: Petitioner appointed on temporary contractual basis under Medical and Health Department, Rajasthan
- April 2025: Services extended until 30 September 2025 via official order
- October 2025: No extension issued; regular appointments completed and filled
- January 2026: Writ petition filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought continuation of his services on the same post, arguing that his long-term contribution and experience warranted re-engagement. Alternatively, he requested that the state consider him and other similarly placed temporary officers for reappointment to any unfilled vacancies based on merit and seniority.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a temporary contractual appointment, explicitly conditioned on the occurrence of regular recruitment, creates a vested right to continued employment after such recruitment is completed.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel conceded that the petitioner had no legal right to continue beyond the contractual term but urged the court to direct the state to consider him and other disengaged temporary officers for reappointment to any remaining unfilled vacancies. He relied on principles of equitable treatment and reasonable classification, arguing that experience and performance should be factored into future selections.
For the Respondent
The state contended that the contractual terms were unambiguous and binding. It emphasized that temporary appointments are inherently provisional and exist solely to meet urgent needs until regular recruitment is finalized. Once regular appointments are made, the contractual basis ceases, and no legal obligation arises to re-engage temporary staff. The state, however, agreed to consider such candidates sympathetically for any future vacancies.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of temporary contractual appointments under public service law and distinguished them from permanent posts governed by Article 311 of the Constitution. It noted that the contract itself contained a clear condition precedent: termination upon regular recruitment. The Court held that such conditions are not merely procedural but substantive, and parties are bound by their express terms.
"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."
The Court further observed that while no vested right arises from temporary engagements, the state cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously when filling subsequent vacancies. It emphasized that sympathetic consideration of experienced temporary employees is not a matter of discretion alone but a facet of fair administrative practice under Article 14. The Court rejected the notion that experience and merit should be ignored merely because the candidate was initially hired on a contractual basis.
The Court also referenced the principle that public employment must balance administrative efficiency with equity, particularly where individuals have rendered continuous service under the same department.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s writ petition was disposed of in his favor. The Court held that while temporary appointees have no vested right to continuation after regular recruitment, the state must consider them for any unfilled vacancies based on merit and period of experience, subject to the same terms and conditions of their original appointment.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Temporary Staff Must Be Considered for Vacancies
- Practitioners representing temporary government employees should now routinely demand written consideration of their clients for unfilled posts after regular recruitment
- Merit and experience must be formally documented and weighed - not treated as optional factors
- Failure to consider such candidates may invite judicial review under Article 14
Contractual Terms Are Binding But Not Exhaustive
- Employers cannot rely solely on contractual language to exclude all future obligations
- Even temporary appointments may trigger duties of fair treatment when public resources are involved
- Departments must maintain transparent records of temporary staff performance for future reference
Sympathetic Consideration Is a Legal Standard, Not a Gesture
- "Sympathetic consideration" as used by the Court is not a discretionary plea but a legally enforceable expectation
- State authorities must establish objective criteria for evaluating temporary employees for re-engagement
- Courts will intervene if such consideration is rendered illusory or procedurally flawed
