Only State Govt Can Decide If Services Of Particular Employee Is Required: Rajasthan HC Nixes Contractual Dental Medical Officers' Plea

Rejecting a plea moved by Medical Officers (Dental) engaged by the state government on a contractual basis whose services were terminated, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court ruled that it was the government's domain to decide on employment of particular person working in it. 

In doing so the court observed that the officers engagement was carried out only on an urgent temporary basis which was extended by the state as per the services required by it. 

Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur in its order said, "The engagement of the petitioners was purely on urgent temporary basis and extension of their engagement was done by the respondents from time to time keeping in mind the services required by the State Government. It is purely within the domain of the State Government to take a decision with respect to the engagement of a particular person to be employed in the State Government. The authorities of the State Government are only competent to take into consideration and decide whether services of a particular professional or an employee are required/needed or not and the decision of the State Government cannot be substituted by the court as giving any kind of direction for engaging a particular person will amount to a direction to be issued by the court without evaluating the fact that whether appointment/engagement of such person is required by the State Government or not and therefore, in the opinion of this court, no such direction can be issued". 

“In the present case, it is the conscious decision of the State Government to continue the services of the Medical Officers and at the same time, not to continue the services of the Medical Officer (Dental) and therefore, the State is well within its right to take a decision for disengaging the services of Medical Officers (Dental) which presupposes the fact that the State has come to the conclusion that the services of Medical Officers (Dental) are no longer required by the State," the court added. 

The bench of was hearing a plea filed by various Medical Officer (Dental) wherein they were appointed on the post on contractual basis till the regularly selected candidates joined their duties. After giving them two extensions to the term of their engagement, their employment was discontinued by the Government against which the petition was filed before the Court.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that just like them, other Medical Officers were also engaged by the Government, however, unlike the other Medical Officers whose term was further extended, the Medical Officers (Dental) were terminated. The counsel argued that to maintain parity, engagement of the petitioners should also be extended by the Government.

Rejecting the argument put forth by the counsel for the petitioners, the Court observed that engagement of petitioners was purely on urgent temporary basis and the extension of their engagement was done based on the requirement of their services by the State Government who was solely competent to take that decision which could not be substituted by the Court.

The Court further rejected the parity argument of the counsel for the petitioners opining that the duties performed by the Medical Officers were not similar to the duties performed by the Medical Officers (Dental) and therefore, the State could take a decision to continue the engagement of former while releasing the latter whose services were no longer required.

Accordingly, the writ petition was rejected.

Title: Dr. Jindal Jain & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 348

Click Here To Read/Download Order