State Can't Invoke Bond Condition In Earlier Appointment After Employee Is Issued Fresh Appointment Letter: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that once an employee was provided a fresh appointment letter, she could not be bound by the condition of bond prescribed in her earlier appointment letter or the rules governing such appointment.

Justice Rekha Borana was hearing a writ petition filed against a direction from the State directing recovery of Rs. 5 lakhs from the petitioner on account of breach of bond on her part as she got transferred from being a “Community Health Officer” to a “Nursing Officer”.

The petitioner was appointed as a “Community Health Officer” in 2021 on a contractual basis. As per the appointment conditions of this appointment, anyone who resigned before 5 years, had to furnish a bond of Rs. 5 Lakhs.

Subsequently, pursuant to the introduction of Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022, the petitioner was appointed as a “Nursing Officer” on a contractual basis for 5 years. In light of this appointment, the concerned authority directed recovering the bond amount from her for leaving the services of a “Community Health Officer”.

This order was challenged by the petitioner on the ground that since she was given a fresh appointment letter in 2023 for the post of the “Nursing Officer”, the earlier appointment letter containing the bond stood rescinded, and she would be governed by the 2022 Rules. Any conditions of the earlier appointment could not be made applicable to her.

On the contrary, it was argued on behalf of the State that the petitioner was given the new appointment for the sole reason that she was already engaged with the department on the contractual basis.

Further it was submitted that the condition of bond was to ensure that the State who bore expenses for training of contractual employees, did not suffer any financial loss on account of the candidate resigning before 5 years. Since the petitioner had availed the benefit of training, she was under an obligation to comply with the conditions of earlier appointment.

After hearing the contentions, the Court rejected the arguments raised by the State. It was held that the conditions of the earlier appointment shall not govern the petitioner once she was provided a fresh appointment order that did not have any condition of bond.

"Herein, condition of the advertisement itself lost its existence/efficacy by virtue of the fresh appointment order and therefore, the said condition would not govern the present petitioner. In view of the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is allowed," the court said. 

“Had the intent of the State been to ensure the compliance of the bonds as furnished by the incumbents in terms of the advertisement in the year 2020, definitely a specific condition to the said effect would have been incorporated in the Rules of 2022. The same having not been incorporated, clarifies that it was never the intent of the legislature to enforce the said condition," it added. 

The Court further opined that even in her new role, the petitioner would be working with the State government only, allowing her to use the skills gained from her training as a “Community Health Office” during her job as a “Nursing Officer”.

Hence, it could not be said that the State shall be bearing any financial loss on account of this new appointment of the petitioner.

In this light, the Court held that the demand of bond recovery raised by the State was irrational and illogical, and bad in eyes of law that could not be upheld.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

Title: Leela Kumari v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 181

Click Here To Read/Download Order