Arjun Lal Prajapat vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 17730 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18149/2019

Arjun Lal Prajapat S/o Shri Kailash Chandra Prajapat, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Kumhar, Resident Of Village Bagwas, District-Pratapgarh (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Public Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Director, Medical And Public Health Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. Additional Director (Administration), Medical And Public Health Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.

4. Registrar, Rajasthan Nursing Council, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Order

25/11/2021

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the

judgment rendered in Sangeeta Mathews @ Sangeeta

Choudhary V. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.1552/2020, decided on 19.04.2021 and therefore,

the present writ petition may also be allowed in terms of the said

judgment.

Submission has also been made that in the present writ

petition interim order has been granted to the effect that the

(2 of 2) [CW-18149/2019]

respondents shall declare the result of the petitioner for the post

of Nurse Grade-II; the same shall nevertheless be subject to final

outcome of the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute that the

issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the

judgment rendered in Sangeeta Mathews (supra).

In the case of Sangeeta Mathews (supra), this Court, inter-

alia, observed & directed as under :-

"58. This Court has reached to an unwavering conclusion that the petitioner fulfills both the requirements, namely - having a valid registration certificate on the date of submitting application form and also the other requirement in terms of Regulation 46 of the Regulations of 1964, as she was having a valid registration certificate at the time of issuance of select list. Petitioner's eligibility, therefore, cannot be questioned.

....... ........ ........ ....... .......... ................ ............... .............

70. As a necessary corollary or consequence of discussions forgoing, the writ petition succeeds.

71. The list dated 08.01.2020 reflecting petitioner's name in the list of rejected candidates, is, therefore, quashed and set aside, albeit, qua the petitioner.

72. The respondents are directed to accord appointment to the petitioner, if she fulfills other eligibility criteria.

73. Appointment order and requisite posting order be issued to the petitioner latest by 31.05.2021.

74. The petitioner shall be entitled for notional benefits w.e.f. 24.01.2020, when the persons, less meritorious than her, have been given/offered appointment (vide select list dated 24.01.2020).

75. Costs made easy.

76. All interlocutory applications, including stay application stand disposed of."

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the

parties, writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in terms of

and with similar directions as given in the case of Sangeeta

Mathews (supra).

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 66-akash/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)