Shalu Verma vs The State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 7781 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9909/2020

1. Shalu Verma D/o Rameshwar Lal Verma, W/o Mahendra Kumar, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Vigyan Nagar Colony, Dist - Jhunjhunu, At Present Posted At Sub Centre, Bidasariya, Phc Lalamdesar Bada, Block Nokha, Dist- Bikaner

2. Neelam W/o Rajesh Poonia, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Village Gagarawas, Teh- Rajgarh, Dist- Churu At Present Posted At Sub Centre Meusar, Phc Lalamdesar Bada, Block Nokha, Dist- Bikaner.

3. Sunita D/o Dalip Singh W/o Dinesh Kajla, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Loyal, Teh- Khetri, Dist - Jhunjhunu At Present Posted At Phc Kakra, Block Nokha, Dist- Bikaner.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department of Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Addl. Director (Admin.), Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Health Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bikaner.

4. The Block Chief Medical Officer, Nokha, District Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. R. Chahar. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K. S. Rajpurohit, AAG

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

24/05/2022

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

controversy in question is covered by the judgment passed in the

case of Sunila Kumari v. The state of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.

(2 of 2) [CW-9909/2020]

Civil Writ Petition No.11443/2016) decided on 25.05.2017,

which has been affirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated

08.11.2017 in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.925/2017

(State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Sunila Kumari).

Learned counsel for the respondents does not refute the

above submission.

In the case of Sunila Kumari (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench

of this Court held as under:-

"In view of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the rejection of petitioner's candidature for the GNM Training Course, on the footing that the petitioner has not completed five years' regular service, is illegal and arbitrary. Petitioner's exclusion from the list of candidature being not in consonance with the conditions of the advertisement, is therefore, quashed.

It is held that the petitioner is entitled for pursuing the GNM training course, as she has got more than five years' experience of continuous service, as ANM."

In view of the ratio as laid down in Sunila Kumari's case

(supra), the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are

directed to permit the petitioners to undergo the training and

attend the classes of GNM training course and grant them study

leave as ordered in the case of Sunila Kumari (supra).

(REKHA BORANA),J 69-Sachin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)