Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nainy Devi vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 837/2021
Nainy Devi W/o Sh. Ram Dayal D/o Sh. Shiv Ram Tak, Aged
About 37 Years, Resident Of - Village - Olvi, Tehsil - Bilara, Dist.
- Jodhpur (Raj.).
----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. SK Shreemali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
10/03/2021
IA NO.1/2021:
1. For the reasons stated, the application for seeking
preponement of the date is allowed, as the petitioner an
unemployed youth has sought appointment and because the issue
involved in the present writ petition is covered by judgment of this
Court in SBCWP No.678/2021 (Ved Pal Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Anr.)
2. The matter is taken up for consideration today itself.
3. Mr. Surendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the
very outset submitted that the issue involved in the present writ
(2 of 4) [CW-837/2021]
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).
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Mr. Surendra Kumar, 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.
However, in light of general direction issued by the Jaipur Bench of
this Court, the respondents invited all the physically handicapped
candidates for the medical test at SMS Hospital, wherein, the
petitioner too had appeared; a Medical Board examined the
petitioner and found him to be having more than 40% disability in
one leg, however, because of some deformity in other leg, his
candidature was rejected while treating him to be an other PH
category candidate.
(3 of 4) [CW-837/2021]
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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
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.
11. 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.
(4 of 4) [CW-837/2021]
(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
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.
12. Stay application too stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
160-Rahul/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
