ORDER : The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “a) declare the order dated 31.08.2019 (Annex.14) passed by respondent No.2, illegal, arbitrary and unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside b) the respondents may kindly be directed to continue the service of the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 12/02/2019 (Annex.9); c) the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the due unpaid salary for the period from 14/02/2019 to 31/08/2019 as well as regular salary to the petitioner for the period he was remained out of service due to the termination order dated 31.02.2019 (Annex.14); d) the respondent University may kindly be directed to conduct enquiry against the respondent No.4 to take strict action against her;” 2. The petitioner in this petition has pleaded that he was appointed as Assistant Professor in the year 1989 in the Agriculture University, Bikaner and after attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from the post of Professor (Statistics) in ICAR-AICRP on Pearl Millet, Jodhpur on 30.12.2017. 3. The petitioner has pleaded that due to work requirement of Statistician in Project Unit of ICAR-AICRP on Pearl Millet, Jodhpur, the Project Co-ordinator had requested the Vice-Chancellor of Agriculture University to continue petitioner’s services after his superannuation. 4. The petitioner has further pleaded that on account of such request being made by the Project Co-ordinator, the Registrar of the Agriculture University had requested the Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Rajasthan and sought his permission to engage petitioner in service till regular recruitment was to be made. 5. The petitioner has pleaded that the Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture vide Communication dated 30.01.2018, permitted the respondent-University to engage the petitioner on service against the vacant post after his superannuation on contract basis, as per the terms and conditions prescribed in the Circular dated 11.07.2017 issued by the Department of Personnel. 6. The petitioner has pleaded that in the Circular dated 11.07.2017, it was specifically mentioned at Point No.10 that the services of contractual employees would be terminated on breach of condition of contractual engagement or by giving 15 days’ prior notice. 7. 6. The petitioner has pleaded that in the Circular dated 11.07.2017, it was specifically mentioned at Point No.10 that the services of contractual employees would be terminated on breach of condition of contractual engagement or by giving 15 days’ prior notice. 7. The petitioner has further pleaded that the respondent-University, after getting permission from the Department of Agriculture, appointed the petitioner on contract basis vide order dated 27.03.2018 for a term of one year from 14.02.2018 to 13.02.2019 on the vacant post of Assistant Professor (Statistics) on fixed pay of Rs.47,600/- per month. 8. The petitioner has pleaded that he completed his one year assignment and rendered satisfactory service and accordingly, the Registrar of the respondent-Agriculture University requested by sending a letter dated 27.12.2018 to the Deputy Secretary, for reengaging the petitioner for a further period of one year. 9. The petitioner has pleaded that on receipt of such letter, the Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture vide its order dated 01.02.2019, again recommended to appoint the petitioner for a term of one year or till regularly selected candidate was made available, whichever was earlier, and Circular dated 11.07.2017 was to be followed. 10. The petitioner has further pleaded that by an order dated 12.02.2019, he was again given appointment for a term of one year w.e.f. 14.02.2019 to 13.02.2020 on a fixed remuneration of Rs.47,600/- per month. 11. The petitioner has pleaded that in spite of his appointment till 13.02.2020, the respondent-University issued the impugned order on 31.08.2019, whereby the termination of services of the petitioner was given effect. 12. The petitioner has pleaded in the petition that respondent No.4, who is the Project Co-ordinator had in fact written a letter on 14.01.2019 to the Vice Chancellor of the respondent-University informing that the petitioner was not able to cope up with the statistical software and his re-employment was not justified and as such, the Project Co-ordinator asked the Vice Chancellor not to extend the services of the petitioner. 13. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent No.4 again reiterated her request on 13.02.2019 by writing letter to the Vice Chancellor of the respondent-University. 14. 13. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent No.4 again reiterated her request on 13.02.2019 by writing letter to the Vice Chancellor of the respondent-University. 14. The petitioner has pleaded that on coming to know about the order/letter dated 13.02.2019, written to the respondent No.4, he submitted a representation before the Vice Chancellor of the respondent-University and submitted that in fact the old computer which was installed in the Department was an assembled computer with printer and the petitioner was doing his job to the utmost satisfaction of the higher authorities and as such, the petitioner had highlighted malfunctioning of the old computer and also requested that the Project Co-ordinator i.e. respondent No.4 was not in a position to take any decision and she was having biased attitude towards the petitioner and accordingly, she had recommended not to extend the services of the petitioner. 15. The petitioner has pleaded in his petition that after submitting his representation to the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University, the Vice-Chancellor also asked explanation from the respondent No.4 i.e. Project Co-ordinator for giving specific reply in response to the representation given by the petitioner. The petitioner has pleaded in his petition that respondent No.4 had written a letter on 28.02.2019 relating to re-employment of the petitioner and request was again made that extension may not be granted to the petitioner. 16. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while opposing the order dated 31.08.2019 has made following submissions:- (i) The office order dated 31.08.2019 is issued in gross violation of the conditions laid down in Circular dated 11.07.2017. (ii) The respondents have acted in an illegal manner without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and their action is against the principle of natural justice. (iii) The authorities could not have acted only on the advice of respondent No.4 to remove the petitioner and the petitioner had a right to continue at least up to the term which was prescribed in his re-engagement order i.e. up to 13.02.2020. 17. Mr. Shishodia, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-University submitted that the relief claimed by the petitioner may not be granted by this Court. Mr. Shishodia further submitted that the petitioner was only given a contractual employment and as such, contractual employee does not have any right to claim to continue in the employment. 18. 17. Mr. Shishodia, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-University submitted that the relief claimed by the petitioner may not be granted by this Court. Mr. Shishodia further submitted that the petitioner was only given a contractual employment and as such, contractual employee does not have any right to claim to continue in the employment. 18. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner in fact has filed the petition with a main grievance that his services were being replaced by another set of contractual employee, whereas the services of petitioner were discontinued and as such, there was no occasion of engaging any other person in place of the petitioner and the entire petition is based on the theory of replacing one employee from another set of contractual employee. 19. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Circular dated 11.07.2017 is not applicable to the present facts of the case, as bare perusal of the Circular dated 11.07.2017, shows that the endorsement is made by the Department of Personnel to the different State Authorities and the same does not apply to the respondent-University. 20. Senior Counsel for the respondent-University further submitted that the prayer made by the petitioner to continue him up to 13.02.2020 may not be granted and he cannot be granted monetary benefits, as his services came to be terminated/discontinued by the order dated 31.08.2019. 21. Senior Counsel further submitted that when the petitioner approached this Court, an interim order was passed on 06.09.2019 and the respondent-University was only restrained to engage any other person on the position, which was occupied by the petitioner and the respondent-University did not engage any other person in place of the petitioner and the petitioner has not worked after discontinuance of his services and as such, no salary can be paid to the petitioner after 01.09.2019. 22. Senior Counsel for the respondent-University further submitted that the allegation of violation of principle of natural justice is not attracted in the present facts of the case, as the petitioner was not a substantive employee and if the authorities found that there was valid reason/justification to discontinue the services of the petitioner, the same could have been done by the respondent-University Authorities. 23. Mr. Ashok Chhangani, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not liable to be entertained by this Court. 23. Mr. Ashok Chhangani, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not liable to be entertained by this Court. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent-ICAR is implementing certain projects and while continuing such projects, they engage certain persons on contract basis and as such, no right can be claimed, to continue in service, by such contractual employee. 24. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that in the present case the Project Co-ordinator i.e. respondent No.4 had clearly informed the Vice Chancellor of the University that the petitioner was not able to cope up with the new statistical software and as such, the desired statistical analysis of the data was not done and re-employment of the petitioner was not justifiable. 25. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has already rendered his services and only on account of his engagement initially for one year and later on re-engagement for another term, will not create any indefeasible right in his favour to claim continuance. 26. Dr. C. Tara Satyavathi i.e. respondent No. 4 is present in person. She submitted that she has wrongly been made party in the present writ petition and the order which has been passed by the competent authority has been passed after taking into account the relevant considerations. She submitted that she had only given her input to the competent authority about functioning of the petitioner and further on analyzing the entire working of the petitioner, she recommended that the petitioner was not suitable for re-engagement as he was not able to perform the job in a proper manner and he was also not able to perform on the computer network which was available with her and as such, there was no malice towards the petitioner and in an administrative decision, if the authorities have found that re-engagement of the petitioner is not possible, the respondent No.4 cannot be fastened with any liability and she has been unnecessarily dragged in the present litigation. 27. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the record. This Court finds certain facts to be undisputed, which are as follows:- (i) The letter dated 18.12.2017 was addressed to the Vice Chancellor of the University, wherein need of an experienced Statistician to handle the data analysis, was emphasized. 27. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the record. This Court finds certain facts to be undisputed, which are as follows:- (i) The letter dated 18.12.2017 was addressed to the Vice Chancellor of the University, wherein need of an experienced Statistician to handle the data analysis, was emphasized. (ii) The Registrar of the University on 20.12.2017 had written to the Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture, to engage the petitioner on re-employment after his superannuation. (iii) The State Government vide letter dated 30.01.2018, granted approval of employing the petitioner, as per the terms and conditions of the Circular dated 11.07.2017. (iv) The Circular dated 11.07.2017 provides in Clause No.(10) that a person who was employed or re-employed on contract basis, if he violated any terms of the appointment or 15 days’ notice was given to terminate the services, then the competent authority was within its domain to terminate the services of such person. (v) The initial engagement of the petitioner was for one year as per letter dated 27.03.2018. (vi) The Registrar again had written letter dated 27.12.2018 to re-engage the petitioner for one more year as his term was going to expire in February, 2019. The re-appointment of the petitioner was for a period from 14.02.2019 to 13.02.2020. This Court is primarily required to consider the validity of the order dated 31.08.2019 which has been passed by curtailing the term of the petitioner and the services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect by the order impugned. 28. This Court finds that the University authorities had written to the State Government to seek their permission to re-employ the petitioner and the competent authority of the State Government, while giving permission of engaging the petitioner initially for one year and later on by way of extension of term of another year, has always referred the Circular dated 11.07.2017. 29. This Court finds no substance in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-University that the Circular dated 11.07.2017 since has not been addressed to them, as such, they are not bound by the same and the impugned order has rightly been passed by them. This Court finds that the Circular makes a reference that it is not only the State Government but also for other undertakings and bodies of the State. 30. This Court finds that the Circular makes a reference that it is not only the State Government but also for other undertakings and bodies of the State. 30. This Court finds that the appointment order of the petitioner for the purpose of employment and for another term of re-employment, had approval from the State Government, as per the Circular dated 11.07.2017 and as such, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to say that the Circular dated 11.07.2017, will not apply to them. 31. This Court finds on reading of various clauses of the Circular dated 11.07.2017 that the right of re-employment was to be given to an employee on certain terms and conditions. Condition No. 10 specifically provided that if the employee on his re-employment violated any terms of the contract, his services could have been dispensed with without any notice. The said clause further provides that the competent authority after giving notice of 15 days, could also take action of terminating the contract. 32. This Court in the present facts of the case finds that the respondents have not alleged violation of any of the terms of employment and further the notice of 15 days’ time has also not been given to the petitioner. This Court has gone through the conditions of re-employment of the petitioner and upon bare reading of such conditions, which are contained in the Office Orders dated 27.03.2018 and 12.02.2019, finds that the first condition is with regard to terminating the services of a contractual employee on account of transfer/promotion/direct recruitment of any new incumbent. Condition No. 2 was in respect of re-engagement for a term of one year or attaining age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. Condition No. 3 is with regard to grant of 12 days’ casual leave to an employee and the last condition was with regard to recovering the dues from the employee on account of any financial loss to the Government. 33. This Court finds that none of the conditions prescribe that service of an employee can be discontinued or shortened, as per the re-engagement order issued by the respondents-University. 34. 33. This Court finds that none of the conditions prescribe that service of an employee can be discontinued or shortened, as per the re-engagement order issued by the respondents-University. 34. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner is a contractual employee and he has not been replaced by any other set of contractual employee, suffice it to say by this Court that the petitioner cannot have a right to continue till eternity and he has a limited right. This Court, however, finds that if a re-engagement order is issued in favour of the petitioner for a term of one year and he has to continue till 13.02.2020, no occasion arose for the respondents to terminate the service of the petitioner before completing the said term which was fixed in the re-engagement order itself. 35. This Court may not be misunderstood to say that any contractual employee, who is engaged by the employer, cannot be discontinued. However, this Court finds that the terms and conditions which are prescribed even for discontinuing the services of a contractual employee prematurely, before completing the entire term, at least show cause notice is required to be given to such employee and then the employer has all the rights to take action, as per the departmental exigency. 36. The submission of learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-University that there was no necessity of giving notice to the petitioner and principle of natural justice would not be attracted in the present case as the petitioner was only a contractual employee, suffice it to say by this Court that if the authorities at one point of time had found that the petitioner was suitable for the assignment given to him and further his re-engagement was also felt necessary to discharge the said assignment, the respondents could not have arbitrarily decided to discontinue the petitioner, without following due procedure of law and at least a notice was required to be given to the petitioner. This Court accordingly finds that the respondents have not acted in a proper manner in passing the order dated 31.08.2019. 37. The issue with regard to impleadment of respondent No.4 as party also needs to be dealt with by this Court. 38. Mr. This Court accordingly finds that the respondents have not acted in a proper manner in passing the order dated 31.08.2019. 37. The issue with regard to impleadment of respondent No.4 as party also needs to be dealt with by this Court. 38. Mr. G.R. Punia, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since he has alleged mala-fides against the respondent No.4, as such, it was necessary for him to implead respondent No.4 as a party-respondent. 39. This Court has gone through the entire pleadings of the writ petition and finds that in Para 9 of the writ petition, it has been alleged that the respondent No. 4 opposed the continuation of the petitioner and she had developed personal grudges against the petitioner and further the counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Para Nos.10 and 12 of the writ petition, where it is alleged that action of terminating the services of the petitioner, has been initiated at the instance of private respondent. 39. This Court finds that it is settled law that if any mala-fides are alleged against any person, the same person needs to be impleaded as a party in the writ petition. This Court, however, finds that if the termination order has been passed and private respondent had written certain letters to the authorities about continuation of petitioner's service or his re-engagement, the same should not result into making the respondent No.4 as a party in the writ petition. The authorities i.e. respondents were already there to defend the order which has been passed by them and as such, this Court in the facts of the present case finds that there was no necessity to implead respondent No. 4 as a party-respondent. 40. Accordingly, this Court allows the writ petition and sets aside the order dated 31.08.2019. This Court makes it clear that the petitioner will be entitled to all the emoluments, which had been agreed between the petitioner and the respondents, as per the terms and conditions of his re-employment and he will be entitled to get the fixed remuneration only up to the period of 13.02.2020. 41. This Court directs the respondents to comply with the order within a period of six weeks after receipt of this order.