Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babita Garwa vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 August, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10312/2021
Babita Garwa D/o Dharmaram Garwa W/o Kapil Dev, Aged About
30 Years, R./o Gram Khabadiyana, Tehsil Jayal, Dist. Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director (Non Gazatted), Medical And Health
Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Chief Medical Health Officer, Jodhpur.
5. The Chief Medical Health Officer, Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Ojha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. KS Rajpurohit, AAG
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
17/08/2021
(1) By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged
the order dated 2.8.2021 (Annex.10).
(2) The petitioner was selected on the post of GNM pursuant to
recruitment notification dated 30.5.2018.
(3) Though the petitioner was allotted District Nagaur on the
basis of her merit, however, since she was working on contractual
basis at MDM Hospital, Jodhpur, she was permitted to join as GNM
at MDM Hospital, Jodhpur due to the situation of spread of
pandemic Covid-19.
(2 of 3) [CW-10312/2021]
(4) Vide order dated 30.7.2021, the petitioner was posted at
DMO, Ladnu, District Nagaur.
(5) According to the petitioner, pursuant to order dated
30.7.2021, she had joined at the place of posting i.e., Principal
Medical Officer, Ladnu, District Nagaur on 2.8.2021.
(6) Mr. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues
that the posting order dated 30.7.2021 has been given effect to,
hence, the respondents cannot keep the order dated 30.7.2021 in
abeyance. He contends that the order dated 2.8.2021 is contrary
to facts and law.
(7) Mr. Rajpurohit, learned Addl. Advocate General submitted
that the order dated 2.8.2021 was necessitated due to
observations made by this Court at Jaipur Bench, having regard to
overall situation due to spread of pandemic.
(8) A perusal of the order dated 2.8.2021 shows that the
respondents have adopted a holistic approach taking into account
spread of Covid-19, inconvenience in taking charge during rainy
season and also because of the fact that many candidates have
not filled-in option form.
(9) The order dated 2.8.2021 has not been alleged to be
contrary to any statutory provision or based on malafides.
(10) In the opinion of this Court, if the State has taken a Policy
decision and kept the posting/transfer orders dated 30.7.2021 in
abeyance in their administrative exigency, no fault can be found in
such order.
(11) In the orders like the one under consideration, scope of
interference of this court is very limited, as the same is a Policy
decision of the State Government.
(3 of 3) [CW-10312/2021]
(12) This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the order
dated 2.8.2021.
(13) The writ petition, therefore, fails.
(14) The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
95-CPGoyal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
