Rajasthan High Court
The State Of Rajasthan vs Dr. Paras Dangi S/O Dr. Hari Ram ... on 22 February, 2022
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 391/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan,
Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Ratangarh, District
Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Dr. Neha Sharma D/o Daya Prakash Sharma, Aged About
28 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Togra Kalan, Tehsil
Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu-333707.
2. The National Board Of Examinations, New Delhi Through
Its Executive Director, Medical Enclave, Ansari Nagar,
Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Ring Road, New Delhi, Delhi
110029.
----Respondents
Connected with
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 390/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan,
Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Sikar District Sikar.
4. The Block Chief Medical And Health Officer, Khandela
District Sikar
----Appellants
Versus
1. Dr. Paras Dangi S/o Dr. Hari Ram Dangi, Aged About 29
Years, Resident Of 15, Parivahan Nagar Khatipura Jaipur,
Medical Officer Posted At Community Health Center
Thoi, Block Chief Medical And Health Officer Khandela
District Sikar.
(2 of 4) [SAW-391/2022]
2. Chairman, Neet P G Medical And Dental Admission /
Counselling Board - 2021, And Principal Govt. Dental
College, Subhash Nagar Behind T B Hospital, Jaipur
3. The National Board Of Examinations, New Delhi Through
Its Executive Director, Medical Enclave, Ansari Nagar,
Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Ring Road, New Delhi, Delhi
110029.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harshal Tholia on behalf of
Dr. VB Sharma, AAG
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Mahesh Chand Gupta
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
22/02/2022
These appeals arise out of a common background. They have
been heard together and are being disposed of by this common
order. Facts are substantially similar and may be noticed from
appeal No.391/2022. This appeal is filed by the State Government
to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated
10.01.2022 passed in the writ petition No. 11655/2021. The
respondent was engaged on an urgent temporary basis as a
medical officer by the State Government on 27.04.2018. Her
services were continued in the same capacity from time to time till
the State Government passed an order dated 28.01.2021
terminating such engagement on the ground that regular
selections had taken place. She approached the High Court and
filed a writ petition No.1522/2021. In such writ petition on
15.02.2021 the learned Single Judge issued an interim order to
continue the petitioner on urgent temporary basis. This order
(3 of 4) [SAW-391/2022]
continued from time to time. We are informed that in the
meantime the petitioner Dr. Neha Sharma was also selected for
regular appointment and appointment was offered in May, 2021
which she accepted.
The State Government has a policy of awarding bonus marks
upto maximum of 30% at the rate of 10% per year of experience
gained by the doctors in government service and who are posted
in remote or rural areas. The petitioner desired to take advantage
of the said scheme. This benefits would be available for PG
medical admissions. The question of break in service would stare
in her face. She therefore filed a fresh writ petition in which the
learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order. The learned
Single Judge was of the opinion that the petitioner was not taken
back in duty inspite of interim order dated 15.02.2021 till
30.04.2021 when was reappointed on fresh engagement. The
intervening period is required to be taken into account for the
purpose of her experience since the petitioner was prevented from
joining the service by the respondents. It was directed that while
calculating the experience of the petitioner the respondents would
not ignore the period from 15.02.2021 to 30.04.2021 and her
bonus marks would be calculated on such basis.
The only factual difference in the connected appeal
concerning Dr. Paras Dangi original-petitioner is that in this case
also similar interim order was passed and such order was
implemented when he was reinstated on 23.11.2021. He however
has not been selected for regular appointment unlike Dr. Neha
Sharma. In his case also the learned Single Judge has given
(4 of 4) [SAW-391/2022]
similar direction for counting the intervening period between
18.02.2021 to 23.11.2021 as experience for calculating bonus
marks.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the documents on record we do not find that the learned
Single Judge has committed any error. By way of interim
directions the Court had required the State authorities to continue
the engagement of the petitioners in the original capacity. For
some reasons the State did not implement the order in one case
and delayed the implementation in other case. The petitioners
cannot be made to suffer for this period when it comes to the
question of counting their experience for awarding bonus marks.
What the learned Single Judge has effectively done by issuing the
directions in questions is to give deeming effect as continuation in
service under the interim order for the purpose of considering
experience.
We find no error. The appeals are dismissed.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
N.Gandhi/8 and 7
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
