Wednesday, 13, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Vimla Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 5137 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 5137 Raj
Judgement Date : 23 February, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vimla Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 February, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1339/2020

Vimla Choudhary D/o Shri Durga Ram W/o Shri Swaroop Ram, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of 92, Mundelo Ka Bas, Bilara, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health Services, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Addl. Director (Training), Medical And Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Rajasthan Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta for Mr. K. S. Rajpurohit, AAG

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Judgment

23/02/2021

1. Mr. Hanuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the

very outset submitted that the issue involved in the present writ

petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated 15.12.2020

rendered in the bunch of cases led by Suresh Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Anr. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.743/2020).

2. Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent -

State, submitted that may be, the issue involved in the petition is

covered by judgment of Suresh (supra) but the petitioner has

approached this Court belatedly, hence, no relief can be granted to

him.

(2 of 4) [CW-1339/2020]

3. Mr. Mehta argued that the petitioner has taken his remedy

only after the judgment of this Court in the case of Anadu Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.104/2020) and

Suresh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) came to be passed

on 15.12.2020.

4. Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents,

pointed out that first select list of physically handicapped

candidates was issued way back on 24.01.2020 and cases of

similarly situated candidates, whose petitions have been allowed

on 15.12.2020, are already at final stage.

5. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted

in his rejoinder, that the petitioner's candidature was rejected

treating him to be a candidate of other PH category.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, argued that as the

respondents themselves had called the petitioner for medical

examination, he was waiting for a favourable response and, when

he found that despite judgment passed in the case of Suresh

(supra) nothing was done, he was advised to file the writ petition

and seek similar reliefs/directions from the Court.

7. Having regard to the facts of the case, this Court finds that

the petitioner has not approached this Court in time. It is

noteworthy that pursuant to the directions given in the case of

Suresh (supra), the respondents have undertaken the requisite

exercise on 28.12.2020. Thus, no absolute direction can be issued

to consider the petitioner's candidature over and above the

candidates [writ petitioner(s) in Suresh (supra)], who had

approached the Court with promptitude.

8. Be that as it may; in the interest of justice, the writ petition

is disposed of in terms of judgment passed in the case of Suresh

(3 of 4) [CW-1339/2020]

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (surpa), however, with the caveat

that the petitioner shall be offered appointment only in case any

vacant seat in PH category remains, after according appointments

to the candidates in whose favour orders have been passed by this

Court.

9. It is, hereby, directed :

(i) That prior to transferring the vacant post (if any) of

PH category candidate to General category candidate,

petitioner's candidature shall be considered.

(ii) In case of vacancy in PH Category, respondent

No.2 shall issue a notice to the petitioner for the

purpose aforesaid.

(iii) The petitioner shall appear in the Office of

respondent No.2 on the date fixed. Respondent No.2

or his nominee shall examine petitioner's original

disability certificate(s) and if his certificate(s) show(s)

him to be having 40% or more disability in one leg, he

shall be treated eligible.

(iv) The respondents shall, thereafter, prepare fresh

select list for PH category and place the eligible

petitioner (after verification of documents) at

appropriate place in the select list, of course according

to his category.

(v) Appointment orders be issued thereafter.

(vi) The petitioner shall produce a certificate of fitness

issued by a competent Medical Authority notified by

the Government for this purpose. The certificate

should clearly indicate that petitioner's physical

(4 of 4) [CW-1339/2020]

difficulty is not likely to interfere with the efficient

performance of his duties as Nurse Grade-II, as

stipulated in Rule 13 of the Rules of 1965. The

competent authority shall not be influenced by the

medical reports, which have been discarded by this

Court and record his independent finding on his own

assessment.

10. Stay application too stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 21-A.Arora/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter