Pravesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 6666 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4142/2021

1. Pravesh Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 31 Years, R/o E-432, Bank Colony, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Dr. Ramji Lal Meena S/o Shri Shankar Lal Meena, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Dr. Kuldeep Garasiya S/o Shri Mani Lal Garasiya, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Someshwarpuri, Jhalana Dungari, Near Aranya Bhawan, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Additional Director (Gazzetted), Medical And Health Services, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. The Registrar, Rajasthan University Of Health An Sciences, Sector - 18, Kumbha Marg, Pratapnagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

5. The Coordinator, Medical Officer (Medical) Recruitment Examination 2020, Rajasthan University Of Health And Sciences, Sector - 18, Kumbha Marg, Pratapmarg, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Kailash Jangid
For Respondent(s)          :



                    JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                 Judgment

05/03/2021





                                                                             (2 of 2)                   [CW-4142/2021]

1. Mr. Jangid, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that the petitioners herein have been selected and offered

appointment to the post of Medical Officer and accordingly they

are required to give their joining by 17.12.2020.

2. It is asserted that in the period interregnum, the petitioners

applied for Senior Residentship course in which they got selected

and have joined the course, which may take some time and even

a year in some of the petitioners' cases.

3. While pointing out that all the petitioners have requested the

respondents to extend the period of joining, he submits that no

order thereupon has been passed, learned counsel submits that if

petitioners' appointment are cancelled, their rights will be affected

and on the other hand, if they are asked to join, as per the

appointment order(s), their right to acquire professional

qualification in the prestigious course would be marred.

4. Matter requires consideration.

5. Issue notice. Issue notice of the stay application, returnable

within six weeks.

6. Meanwhile, petitioners' appointment shall not be cancelled

on account of non-joining.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 156-Rahul/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)