The Rajasthan High Court has held that a fresh appointment letter supersedes the conditions of an earlier contractual appointment, including any bond requirements.

Justice Rekha Borana delivered this ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by Leela Kumari, a contractual employee in the state’s health services.

Leela Kumari was initially appointed as a Community Health Officer (CHO) in 2021 on a contractual basis, under a scheme that required candidates to furnish a bond of ₹5 lakhs if they resigned before completing five years.

In 2023, she received a fresh appointment as a Nursing Officer under the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022. This appointment was also contractual but did not include any bond condition.

The State later issued a direction for recovering ₹5 lakhs from Kumari, citing breach of the earlier bond due to her transition from CHO to Nursing Officer.

The petitioner contended that the earlier appointment—and the associated bond—stood nullified once she was given a new appointment letter under the 2022 Rules. She argued that she could not be held to terms that were not incorporated in the subsequent employment contract.

The state argued that the new appointment was given because she was already working under contract, and that the bond condition was aimed at preventing financial losses arising from premature resignations—especially since the State bore the cost of employee training.

Rejecting the state’s argument, the court held:

• The fresh appointment under the 2022 Rules did not carry any bond condition.

• The original bond condition ceased to apply once a new appointment order was issued.

• Had the State intended to carry forward the earlier bond obligations, the 2022 rules would have explicitly provided for it.

The Court also noted that the petitioner remained employed with the state and would continue to apply the skills gained during her CHO training. Therefore, the State could not claim any financial loss due to the transition.

The High Court termed the recovery demand as irrational, illogical, and unsustainable in law, and accordingly set it aside. The writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner.