Dipeeka Panda Daughter Of Shri ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 4000 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8725/2021

Dipeeka Panda Daughter Of Shri Narhing Panda, Wife Of Shri
Kamlesh Kumar Ninama, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of
Village And Post Magarda, Damrasath, Tehsil Sajjangarh, District
Banswara (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
       Medical And Health Services, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     The Director (Non Gazatte), Department Of Medical And
       Health Service, Medical Directorate, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.     Additional    Director        (Administration),           Department    Of
       Medical      And       Health       Service,        Rajasthan,    Medical
       Directorate, Jaipur.
4.     Chief Medical And Health Officer, Sirohi, District Sirohi
       (Raj.)
5.     Chief Medical And Health Officer, Banswara, District
       Banswara (Raj.)
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Komal Kumari Giri For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

25/08/2021

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in

this writ petition has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur in the matter of Poonam

Kumari & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 10119/2021) where-in on 06.08.2021 following

order was passed:

(2 of 2) [CW-8725/2021]

"(1) Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, learned AAG appearing for the respondent-State submits that the posting order dated 30.07.2021 impugned in the present writ petition, has been kept in abeyance by the Director (Gazetted), Medical and Health Services, Jaipur, vide its order dated 02.08.2021.

(2) It is submitted by Mr. Rajpurohit that the same is kept in abeyance in light of possible 3rd wave of Covid-19.

(3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is not in a position to dispute the same. (4) In view of the aforesaid, the cause of action does not subsist.

(5) The writ petition as well as the stay application are, therefore, disposed of.

(6) Needless to observe that the petitioners shall be at liberty to file fresh writ petition, if any fresh cause of action arises or the respondent-State proceeds in furtherance of the posting order dated 30.07.2021, impugned in the instant writ petition".

In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is disposed

of in view of judgment passed in the matter of Poonam Kumari

(supra).

However, the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh writ petition, if

need so arises.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

CHETNA BEHRANI /130

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)