Dr Anil Tambi Son Of Shri Radhey ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 869 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16282/2018

Dr Anil Tambi Son Of Shri Radhey Shyam Tambi, Aged About 55
Years, Resident Of A-522, Govind Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary To The
Government, Medical Education Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
                                                                  ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harsh Sahu, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

28/01/2021 Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the

judgment passed by this court in the case of Dr. Raj Kumar

Saxena Versus State of Rajasthan & Others, SBCWP

No.3274/2018 and submits that the respondents be directed to

re-examine the matter again in the light of the observations made

in the aforesaid judgment and take a fresh decision with regard to

the application moved by the petitioner relating to seeking

voluntary retirement.

Learned counsel for the respondents does not object to

such a prayer.

In the case of Dr. Raj Kumar Saxena Versus State

of Rajasthan & Others, SBCWP No.3274/2018 decided on

15.12.2018, wherein this court has held as under:-

(2 of 2) [CW-16282/2018]

"11. However, the State Government cannot be allowed to take a general decision to reject all the applications of voluntary retirement and the facts and circumstances of each case are required to be examined individually and speaking order in relation to each and every case is required to be passed. Merely, because there is a general need of doctors, a general order rejecting all the applications of the applicants, who are doctors, cannot be made by giving the same reason for all the applications and the same is held to be unjustified and without application of mind.

12. Accordingly, this court deems it appropriate to direct the State Government to re-examine the application moved by the petitioner and pass a speaking order individually in all the cases taking into consideration the relevant circumstances, as noticed above. The petitioners are set at free to challenge the said orders, if they so choose. The directions are therefore given to the State Government to take a decision within one month from the date of submission of certified copy of this order."

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the terms

of the case as directed in Dr. Raj Kumar Saxena (supra).

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

Anu /2

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)