Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition challenging the order directing compliance with the bond dated 18-09-2021 in light of the petitioner’s subsequent appointments under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022 and her new posting as a Nursing Officer within the State Government, a single-judge bench of Rekha Borana, J., quashed the impugned order and held that bond clause in the 2020 advertisement lost its efficacy upon issuance of the new appointment under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022.
In the instant matter, the petitioner was originally appointed as a Community Health Officer (CHO) in 2021 under a recruitment advertisement dated 31-08-2020, which required execution of a bond of ₹5 lakhs. The bond stipulated that if she resigned within five years from the completion of her training, she would be liable to pay the bond amount. Later, pursuant to the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022, the petitioner was given a fresh appointment as CHO under order dated 27-03-2022, followed by another appointment on 26-04-2023 for a period of five years.
In the meantime, the petitioner was selected and appointed as a Nursing Officer through a separate recruitment process initiated by the State Government on 05-05-2023. However, by a communication dated 15-01-2025 and order dated 22-01-2025, authorities directed enforcement of the earlier bond executed in 2021, thereby compelling the petitioner to deposit ₹5 lakhs before being relieved.
The petitioner contended that the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022, under which the petitioner was given a fresh appointment, did not contain any bond requirement and appointment order dated 26-04-2023 did not stipulate any bond requirement. It was argued that once a fresh appointment is made under new rules, conditions of earlier advertisements cease to apply. It was further contended that since the petitioner continues to serve the same employer (State Government) as a Nursing Officer, there is no financial loss to the State.
However, the respondent contended that the petitioner was trained at State expense under the earlier appointment. It was contended that the bond aimed to prevent financial loss if a trained candidate exited before five years and since the training was utilized for her benefit, she is liable to fulfill the bond obligations. The respondents cited Manisha Devi Meena v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.,1 where similar bond enforcement was upheld.
The Court observed that the petitioner was governed by a fresh appointment order issued under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022, which did not prescribe any bond. The Court held that “the condition as prescribed in advertisement dated 31.08.2020 shall no more govern the present petitioner” once a new appointment was made under new rules.
The Court categorically stated that if the State intended to enforce the old bond, such a clause should have been included in the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022 or the fresh appointment orders and its absence “clarifies that it was never the intent of the legislature to enforce the said condition.”
Further, the Court asserted that since the petitioner continues to serve the State Government, albeit in a different role, the argument of financial loss is “irrational and illogical.” The Court held that the State Authorities’ direction for deposit of the bond amount is bad in the eyes of law and cannot be upheld.
The Court distinguished Manisha Devi Meena case (Supra) and observed that the petitioner there continued under the original bond terms, whereas in the present case, “condition of the advertisement itself lost its existence/efficacy by virtue of the fresh appointment order.”
The Court quashed and set aside the communication dated 15-01-2025 and the order dated 22-01-2025. The Court held that the petitioner shall not be pressurised to comply with the bond dated 18-09-2021, and directed that no punitive action be taken for non-compliance of the said bond.
[Leela Kumari v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7728/2025, Decided on 01-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Vivek Firoda, Mr. Jayram Saran and Mr. Nikhil Bishnoi, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Tanuj Jain for Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC, Counsel for the Respondents
1. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 385/2021