RAMDHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing order dtd. 7/1/2026, whereby his contractual services on the post of Cluster Level Manager under the Rajivika Project have been terminated in exercise of powers under Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022 (for short 'the Rules of 2022'). The petitioner has also prayed for reinstatement with consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts, in brief, as pleaded by the petitioner are that he was initially engaged on contractual basis in the year 2018 under the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department and was subsequently brought within the ambit of the Rules of 2022 after due screening, whereupon he was issued appointment order dtd. 20/2/2023. It has been pleaded that despite being assigned additional responsibilities of multiple blocks, he discharged his duties diligently and without any complaint. However, from May, 2024 onwards, a series of notices were issued to him alleging deficiencies in performance, to which he submitted replies explaining the difficulties such as shortage of staff and technical issues in the online portal. It is further pleaded that without properly considering his explanations, a recommendation was made by the District Project Manager for termination of his services, culminating into issuance of show cause notices and ultimately, the impugned termination order dtd. 7/1/2026.

(3.) Respondents opposed the writ petition by way of filing reply and submitting that the petitioner was a purely contractual employee governed entirely by the terms and conditions of his appointment as well as the Rules of 2022. It is submitted that repeated notices were issued to the petitioner regarding unsatisfactory performance, non-compliance of instructions and lack of progress in the assigned work. Despite adequate opportunity, the petitioner failed to improve his performance to the expected level. It is further contended that show cause notices were duly issued, however, most of them remained un-responded. Even then, before taking any action against the petitioner, reply to the later notice submitted by the petitioner was considered and finding no substance in the reply to the notice, a conscious decision was taken to terminate his services. It is argued that the scope of judicial review in contractual matters is limited and no case of arbitrariness or violation of statutory provisions is made out.