ORDER : 1. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is retired Colonel from Army Ordinance Corps of Indian Army re-employed on the post of District Sainik Welfare Officer has assailed the memo dated 23-11-2022 (Annexure P/2) issued by respondent No.1 by which the contractual period of the petitioner has not been extended, memo dated 28-11-2022 (Annexure P/3) relieving him with effect from 9-12-2022. He has also challenged his contractual appointment dated 26-11-2021 (Annexure P/3) issued by respondent No.2. 2. The State has filed an application for issuance of a specific direction to modify the order and also filed an application for vacating the interim order passed by this Court as 1919 persons are being adversely affected on account of non-availability of District Welfare Sainik Officer at Bilaspur. Therefore, considering this aspect of the mater this court heard the matter finally with consent of the parties. 3. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the State of Chhattisgarh to look after the welfare of the Ex-Army personnel from Indian Army and their family members has constituted the Sainik Welfare Board. The petitioner applied for appointment on the post of District Sainik Welfare Officer (DSWO) and also appeared in the interview conducted. He was selected and accordingly, appointment order dated 26-11-2021 (Annexure P/ 1) was issued in favour of the petitioner and in pursuance of the said order, he assumed the office of District Sainik Welfare Officer, Bilaspur on 10-12-2021 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment order. The relevant clause of the appointment order is reproduced below. ^^2- lafonk fu;qfDr dh vof/k dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus ds fnukad ls 01 o"kZ vFkok lafonk fu;qDr mEehnokj ds 60 o"kZ iw.kZ gksus dh vof/k rd tks Hkh igys gks] ds fy, ÁHkkoh gksxhA lafonk fu;qDr O;fDr dh mi;qDrrk dh vof/k dh lekfIr ij lafonk fu;qfDr Loeso lekIr ekuh tkosxhA** 4. The petitioner was not satisfied with the terms and conditions, therefore, he has raised objection and submitted his representation on 16-02-2022 (Annexure P/2) contending that appointment order is on contractual which is against the Chhattisgarh Sainik Welfare (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1983 (hereinafter to be referred to as” Rules of 1983”) as well as the Contractual Employees Rules, 2012. The petitioner was not satisfied with the terms and conditions, therefore, he has raised objection and submitted his representation on 16-02-2022 (Annexure P/2) contending that appointment order is on contractual which is against the Chhattisgarh Sainik Welfare (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1983 (hereinafter to be referred to as” Rules of 1983”) as well as the Contractual Employees Rules, 2012. His representation was duly forwarded to the authorities, but no action has been taken, therefore, again he sent a representation on 13-4-2022. The said representation was forwarded to the authorities but no final decision has been taken. Without considering the said representation, the impugned order dated 23-11-2022 (Annexure P/2) has been issued by which it has been directed that the contractual period of the petitioner will not be extended. 5. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the Rules of 1983, Rule 6 provides method of recruitment. As per Rule 6 (v), if exigency so arises, the Government may with prior concurrence of the Public Service Commission (PSC) adopt such methods of recruitment to the service other than those specified in the said sub rule as it may be by order issued in this behalf. But without seeking prior concurrence of the PSC the department has departed from the recruitment process and appointed him on contractual basis. As such, the appointment order is against the Rule 19 of the Rules of 1983. 6. It has also been contended that Government of India, Ministry of Defense, Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, New Delhi has stipulated the scheme of appointment of District Sainik Welfare Officers in the States and Union Territories of India vide Letter F-22(5)/20q13-D (Res.II) dated 26-12-2013 called as Kendriya Sainik Board (KSB) guidelines dated 26-12-2013 issued by Ministry of Defense, Government of India, the broad guidelines have been laid down to formulate a standard policy across the country. He would further submit that in the State of Chhattisgarh, the expenditure towards pay allowance and the establishment cost is borne by Government of India to the extent of 60% ratio and as per guidelines, District Sainik Welfare Officers can continue upto the age of 60 years. As such, he would further submit that the Clause (ii) of the appointment order is against the guidelines dated 26-12-2013. Clause 3 ((d) of the policy reads as under. As such, he would further submit that the Clause (ii) of the appointment order is against the guidelines dated 26-12-2013. Clause 3 ((d) of the policy reads as under. “3 Eligibility Criteria:- (d) Services of appointed DSWO may continue upto 60 years of age, subject to the satisfactory performance of the concerned officer. The tenure of Director, Sainik Welfare – cum – Secretary, RSB will be for a period of five years”. 7. It has also been contended that the Erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh has proposed amendments to the aforesaid Rules of 1983 wherein the initial appointment of District Sainik Welfare Officer on contract basis for a period of three years has been stipulated which also provides for renewal clause also (Annexure P/11). It has also been contended that the tenure of the contract being for one year only from the date of assuming appointment or till the age of 60 years whichever is earlier is contrary to the Rules of 1983 as well as guidelines issued on 26-12-2013. It has also been contended that on 19-9-2022 the petitioner duly applied for renewal of his contractual services as he is aged 57 years and six months, therefore, he can still work upto the age of 60 years. Without considering the application for extension, the respondent authority has issued the order dated 29-11-2022. On the above factual matrix, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 29–11-2022 as well as terms of appointment order dated 26-11-2021. 8. This court vide order dated 8-12-2022 has directed that the post of Sainik Welfare Officer shall not be filled up by new recruitment, till the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the said interim relief is continued. This court vide order dated 13-3-2023 has directed the State to file an additional affidavit indicating complete procedure for appointment of the petitioner on post of District Sainik Welfare Officer, Bilaspur. 9. The State has filed their return, opposing the aforesaid submission would submit that the petitioner’s appointment cannot be extended in terms of the conditions mentioned in the appointment order dated 26-11-2021. 9. The State has filed their return, opposing the aforesaid submission would submit that the petitioner’s appointment cannot be extended in terms of the conditions mentioned in the appointment order dated 26-11-2021. It is further contended that the guidelines were issued by the Central Government for appointment of Director, Sainik Welfare-cum-Secretary, Rajya Sainik Boards and Additional Director, Sainik Welfare-cum-Zila Sainik Welfare Officers in the State relying upon the letter dated 26-12-2013 and contended that the officer can be continued upto 60 years of age, subject to the satisfactory performance of the concerned officer. It has been contended that the petitioner has not interpreted the entire clause 3(d) which specifically provided that the period of appointment can be extended on the satisfaction of the concerned officer whereas in the present case, the petitioner was appointed on the contract basis on 26-11-2021 with a very clear terms and conditions which he has accepted and given joining on 10-12-2021. As such, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the same. It has been further contended that from bare perusal of the Clause II of the guidelines dated 26-12-2013, it is quite vivid that the Sainik Board has to be declared as a Department of the State Government and their employees as State Government employees and these personnel will be governed by the Statement Government rules in the matter of recruitment, pay and allowances, leave, discipline, medical attendance, retirement pension, gratuity etc., Therefore, no separate rules governing conditions of service of the employees of these Boards are being issued, since the Central Government shares the expenditure towards pay and allowances and the Establishment cost in the ratio of 75% in respect of 11 special category State ie.. Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura, Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Sikkim and in the ratio of 60% in respect of remaining States which clearly authorizes the State Governments to make their own rules for the period of appointment, recruitment etc. Accordingly, the State Government has framed contractual appointment rules in the year 2012 and accordingly he was appointed on contractual basis. Accordingly, the State Government has framed contractual appointment rules in the year 2012 and accordingly he was appointed on contractual basis. It has been further contended that the representation dated 16-2-2022 submitted by the petitioner is not a representation for extension of contract appointment, but it is for the raise of salary of the petitioner, as such it is clear that the petitioner was well aware that the appointment order dated 26-11-2021 was contractual appointment. It has been further contended that the Rules 1983 are not applicable to the case of the petitioner as he was appointed on contractual basis and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. The respondent No. 3 has filed an application for adoption of the reply filed by respondent No. 2 which was considered and allowed and was permitted to adopt the same. 11. Controverting the submissions made by the State counsel, the petitioner has filed rejoinder reiterating the same stand which has already been taken in the writ petition, mainly contended that the Rules 2012 are not applicable. He would further submit that Rules 1983 which are framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, are occupying the field and therefore, contention made by the State that the Rules 2012 are applicable is incorrect submission of facts. 12. The petitioner has also filed an application for amendment in the writ petition on 6-2-2023 which was allowed by this court as observed in the order sheet and the petitioner was directed to incorporate the same. The petitioner by way of an amendment has prayed for incorporation of para 8.15A and para 8.15B after para 8.15, wherein it has been stated that without prejudice the petitioner had applied for renewal of his contractual services on 19-9-2022 much prior to expiry of his contractual period. However, no decision was taken and this material fact has been suppressed by the respondent/State. It has been further contended that the respondent No.2 without even referring to the application of renewal of the petitioner to the respondent No.1, without making any kind of performance appraisal in terns of rule 15(3) of the Rules of 2012 on his own in most malicious manner recommended non-renewal of the petitioner. It has been further contended that the respondent No.2 without even referring to the application of renewal of the petitioner to the respondent No.1, without making any kind of performance appraisal in terns of rule 15(3) of the Rules of 2012 on his own in most malicious manner recommended non-renewal of the petitioner. In fact, the letter dated 10-10-2021 by which the respondent No.2 recommended to respondent No.1 not to renew term of the petitioner was never communicated to the petitioner and till date it has not been served on the petitioner. Therefore, respondent No.2 has acted with legal malice manner against the petitioner. After paragraph 9.13, 9.13A, 9.13B and 9.13C the petitioner reiterated the same facts and also seeks permission of this Court to incorporate para 10.2A, 10.2B after para 10.2 wherein the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction by setting aside Annexure P/2 and Annexure P/3 as being issued by incompetent authority based on non-existent grounds and to declare that the petitioner is entitled for renewal and continuation of his appointment in accordance with the Rules. 13. The State in compliance of the order passed by this court on 13-3-2023 has filed an affidavit reiterating the stand that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis and this fact is well known to the petitioner. It has also been contended that on 26-2-2022 the petitioner has shown his inability to join at Jagdalpur but he joined on the post at Bilaspur without any objection vide letter dated 26-2-2022 as such it is well known to him that his appointment is contractual. 14. This court has also directed the State Government to produce the original case file of the appointment procedure adopted by them. In pursuance of the direction given by this court, the State has submitted the same for perusal of this court. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 16. The record of the case would demonstrate that the Chhattisgarh State Sainik Welfare Board which consists of Additional Chief Secretary, Director General of Police, Secretary (Home), OSD-Res-II, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Joint Director (Policy), Joint Secretary, Home Department, Govt of Chhattisgarh, Air Commander, Director, Directorate Sainik Welfare Chhattiasgarh has conducted interview on 14-12-2020 as per guidelines issued by the Central Government on 26-12-2013 for appointment of DSWOs, Raipur, Bilaspur, Jashpur, Jagdalpur and Kanker. The Committee after scrutinizing the candidates has issued appointment order for appointment of District Sainik Welfare Officer, Raipur, Bilaspur, Jaspur on contractual basis vide order dated 17-1-2022. The appointment on the post of District Sainik Welfare Officer at Jagdalpur was done on the basis of contractual basis. The petitioner was also appointed as District Sainik Welfare Officer for Jagdalpur, but he has not shown his willingness to join at Jagdalpur vide letter dated 29-2-2022. The record produced by the State would demonstrate that the appointment was made on the basis of contractual basis including Kanker also. The appointment was made on contractual basis having same condition of one year or completion of the age of 60 years whichever is earlier. Thus, It is quite vivid that the respondent has adopted uniform terms and conditions for appointment of Sainik Welfare Officer. The record of the case would further demonstrate that certain complaint was made against the petitioner and the investigation was carried out. 17. On the above factual position, the points to be determined by this court are- (I) whether the petitioner who has been appointed on contractual basis can claim continuation of contractual employment even after lapse of one year or upto 60 years whichever is earlier. (ii) whether the service condition of the petitioner is governed by Rules 1983 which provides that the appointment on the post of District Sainik Welfare Officer will be on the permanent basis. 18. To determine the point raised in this petition it is necessary for this Court to extract the relevant service rules which are as under :- “Schedule-1 of Rules provides appointment of District Sainik Welfare Officer, Class II Gazetted post with pay scale of Rs.1000-1800 or last pay drawn less pension and pension equivalent to DC in respect of re-employed pensioner officer of the Armed Forces of rank of Lt.Col/Major/Capt or equivalent of Navy/Air Force. Rule 6 of the Rules provides method of recruitment by direct recruitment of 100% or by promotion from Assistant District Sainik Welfare Officers. Rule 6 (v) further provides that subject to first preference be given to Ex-servicemen, all appointments of service after commitment of the Rules shall be made by the Government and no such appointment shall be made except after selection by the one of the methods of recruitment is specified in Rule 6. 19. The Rule 8 provides condition of eligibility of direct recruitment. 19. The Rule 8 provides condition of eligibility of direct recruitment. “In order to be eligible to be selected candidates must satisfy the following condition, namely:- (1) Age (a) He must have attained the age of 31 years and not attained the age of 55 years on the first day of January next following the date of commencement of the selection except that no age limit shall apply to the candidates already in employment with Sainik Welfare Organization. (b) The upper age limit shall be relaxed upto a maximum of 5 years, if a candidate belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe provided the upper age does not exceed 55 years given in (a) above. (c)The upper age limit will also be relaxable in respect of candidates who are, or have been, employees of the Madhya Pradesh Government to the extent and subject to the conditions specified below:- (i) A candidate who is a permanent Government servant should not be be more than 38 years of age. (ii) The age of candidate holding a post temporarily/and applying for another post should not be more than 38 years of age. This concession should also be admissible to the contingency paid employees, work-charged employees and employees working in the project implementing Committees. (iii) A candidate who is a retrenched, Government servant will be allowed to deduct from his age the period of all temporary service previously rendered by him upto a maximum limit of 7 years, even if it represents more than one spell provided that the resultant age does not exceed the upper age limit by more than three years”. 20. From above stated rule it is quite vivid that the maximum age for regular appointment on the post of District Sainik Welfare Officer is 55 years whereas the petitioner was appointed on 26-11-2021 after completion of 56 years. As such, he was age barred to be appointed on regular basis. Therefore, he can only be considered for appointment on the contract basis. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have done the appointment ignoring the rules and have not followed the procedure provided under the Rules by giving him contractual appointment is incorrect submission on the face of record as the petitioner was age barred. Therefore, he cannot be considered for regular appointment. 21. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have done the appointment ignoring the rules and have not followed the procedure provided under the Rules by giving him contractual appointment is incorrect submission on the face of record as the petitioner was age barred. Therefore, he cannot be considered for regular appointment. 21. The further contention of the petitioner that recruitment should be done in accordance with Rule 6 (v) of the Rules, but the petitioner has nowhere pleaded to substantiate that his appointment was done by the respondents in accordance with Rules 1983. This court has considered the entire record of the selection procedure produced by the State wherein it has been clearly mentioned that in all the Districts the appointments were made on the basis of contract for Jagdalpur, Kanker, Bilaspur and Raipur. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner was discriminated and he was only given the appointment order on contractual basis. 22. The petitioner has nowhere challenged Clause (ii) of the appointment order by filing the writ petition before joining of service but after getting the benefit of contractual appointment, subsequently he has challenged the same before this Court, after completion of contract period of one year as per the clause of the appointment order. Thus, he cannot take benefit in one hand and object the same in other hand. As such, he is estopped as per Doctrine Of Approbate And Reprobate. This issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Karunesh Kumar and others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1706 wherein it has been held as under. “22.In the case at hand, the un-selected candidates want to press into service a part of the 1978 Rules while accepting the 2015 Rules. Such a selective adoption is not permissible under law, as no party can be allowed to approbate or reprobate, as held by this Court in Union of India v. N Murugesan (2022) 2 SCC 25 : “Approbate and reprobate 26. These phrases are borrowed from the Scots law. They would only mean that no party can be allowed to accept and reject the same thing, and thus one cannot blow hot and cold. The principle behind the doctrine of election is inbuilt in the concept of approbate and reprobate. These phrases are borrowed from the Scots law. They would only mean that no party can be allowed to accept and reject the same thing, and thus one cannot blow hot and cold. The principle behind the doctrine of election is inbuilt in the concept of approbate and reprobate. Once again, it is a principle of equity coming under the contours of common law. Therefore, he who knows that if he objects to an instrument, he will not get the benefit he wants cannot be allowed to do so while enjoying the fruits. One cannot take advantage of one part while rejecting the rest. A person cannot be allowed to have the benefit of an instrument while questioning the same. Such a party either has to affirm or disaffirm the transaction. This principle has to be applied with more vigour as a common law principle, if such a party actually enjoys the one part fully and on near completion of the said enjoyment, thereafter questions the other part. An element of fair play is inbuilt in this principle. It is also a species of estoppel dealing with the conduct of a party. We have already dealt with the provisions of the Contract Act concerning the conduct of a party, and his presumption of knowledge while confirming an offer through his acceptance unconditionally. xxx xxx xxx 27.2. State of Punjab v. Dhanjit Singh Sandhu [ (2014) 15 SCC 144 ] : (SCC pp. 153-54, paras 22-23 & 25-26) “ 22. The doctrine of “approbate and reprobate” is only a species of estoppel, it implies only to the conduct of parties. As in the case of estoppel it cannot operate against the provisions of a statute. (Vide CIT v. MR. P. Firm Muar [ AIR 1965 SC 1216 ].) 23. It is settled proposition of law that once an order has been passed, it is complied with, accepted by the other party and derived the benefit out of it, he cannot challenge it on any ground.(Vide Maharashtra SRTC v. Balwant Regular Motor Service [ AIR 1969 SC 329 ].) In R.N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir [ (1992) 4 SCC 683 ] this Court has observed as under : (R.N. Gosain case [ (1992) 4 SCC 683 ], SCC pp. 687-88, para 10) ‘10. Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. 687-88, para 10) ‘10. Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that ‘a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage’.’ xxx xxx xxx 25. The Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. v. Diamond & Gem Development Corpn. Ltd. [ (2013) 5 SCC 470 : (2013) 3 SCC (Civ) 153], made an observation that a party cannot be permitted to “blow hot and cold”, “fast and loose” or “approbate and reprobate”. Where one knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract or conveyance or an order, is estopped to deny the validity or binding effect on him of such contract or conveyance or order. This rule is applied to do equity, however, it must not be applied in a manner as to violate the principles of right and good conscience. 26. It is evident that the doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel, the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate is inherent in it. The doctrine of estoppel by election is one among the species of estoppel in pais (or equitable estoppel), which is a rule of equity. By this law, a person may be precluded, by way of his actions, or conduct, or silence when he has to speak, from asserting a right which he would have otherwise had.” 23. The petitioner after taking advantage of contractual appointment has fled this writ petition after expiry of one year of contractual appointment. It is well settled position of law that a contractual employee cannot claim to be continued after completion of contractual period. This issue has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation vs. Paramjeet Singh { 2019 (6) SCC 250 ) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 6 to 10 held as under:- 6. The sole ground on which the writ petition was allowed was that there was a breach of the principle of natural justice. 7. The sole ground on which the writ petition was allowed was that there was a breach of the principle of natural justice. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the High Court was in error, having regard to the fact that the nature of the appointment was purely contractual for a period of one year or until the shortage of drivers was met, whichever was earlier. Moreover, the contract stipulates that the services of the respondent could be dispensed with without any notice. 8. We find merit in the submission. The terms of the appointment indicate that the respondent was on a purely contractual appointment and that the services could be dispensed with without notice at any stage. 9. The learned Single Judge of the High Court relied upon a decision of this Court in Hari Ram Maurya v Union of India and others. That case is, however, distinguishable since it was found by this Court that the removal was on the ground that the employee, though he was engaged on a temporary basis, was guilty of a charge of bribery. 10. Having regard to the terms of the contractual engagement, we are of the view that the action of the appellant cannot be faulted. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. In consequence, the writ petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 24. Thus, in view of the aforesaid legal position, the petitioner has not challenged the terms and conditions and without any demur or objection he has joined the services. Thus, he is estopped from challenging the same. The petitioner has also prayed that Annexure P/2 and Annexure P/3 be set aside as it has been issued by incompetent person. The petitioner by way of amendment has nowhere pleaded that Annexure P/2 and P/3 have been issued by incompetent persons but merely sought to be quashed on the pretext of incompetence of the authority cannot be considered accordingly the subsequent prayer for setting aside Annexures P/2 and P/3 on the count of competency deserves to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. 25. 25. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to respondents to extend the terms of petitioner for one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment/order of the writ petition for that petitioner is at liberty to make representation before the respondent within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order which will be considered by the respondent in accordance with law. 26. In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid liberty granted in favour of the petitioner. 27. Interim relief granted by this court earlier on 08-12-2022 stands vacated.