### Excluding Experienced Contractual Employees from Fresh Recruitment by Limiting Eligibility to Retired Personnel is Legally Unsustainable

The petitioner was appointed as a Research Officer on a one-year contractual basis in the Programme Implementation Department of the State Government on 17.03.2025, following the recommendation of a duly constituted Selection Committee.

Upon the expiration of the term, the State issued a fresh advertisement on 14.01.2026 for the same position, but restricted eligibility exclusively to retired Government officers/employees.

The petitioner challenged this condition, arguing it was unjust, lacked a rational nexus to the objective, and violated the principle that one contractual employee cannot be replaced by another.

The State defended the condition, asserting that retired officers possess superior experience for monitoring welfare programmes and that the petitioner had no vested right to re-engagement.

The court relied on the fundamental principle that the right to be considered for employment is a valuable right that can only be denied for valid, non-arbitrary reasons.

It further referred to the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Gupta and Another etc. v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others etc. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3084-3088 of 2022), which establishes that a contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee.

The Court rejected the State's argument that only retired officers possess the necessary "wide experience" to monitor government programmes.

It reasoned that since the petitioner had already served as a Research Officer for one year, they had acquired relevant experience and therefore could not be "excluded altogether from the zone of consideration".

The Court found that while the State has the prerogative to set qualifications, the specific exclusion of non-retired individuals—especially those with prior experience in the exact role—was invalid and lacked a legitimate justification.

The Court determined that the impugned condition in the advertisement dated 14.01.2026 was unsustainable in the eyes of law as it arbitrarily curtailed the petitioner's right to be considered for employment.

The Court held that the petitioner, having served for a year, holds a right to be considered for the position.

The competent authority was directed to issue a fresh advertisement without the impugned condition, provided the selection process had not already concluded.