Sareeta vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 7782 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9809/2020

1. Sareeta D/o Shri Naphe Singh W/o Shri Sandeep Bhaskar, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Nagaur Presently Posted As A.N.M., Sub Health Center, Ramsari, Community Health Center Edwa, Block And Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur.

2. Suman D/o Shri Anup Singh W/o Shri Neeraj, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Nagaur Presently Posted As A.N.M., Sub Health Center Kutyasani Khur, Block Degana, District Nagaur.

3. Meera D/o Shri Parmeshwar Lal W/o Shri Shrawan Kumar, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Churu Presently Posted As A.N.M., Sub-Health Center, Melusar Bikan, Primary Health Center Foga, Tehsil And Block Sardarshahar, District Churu.

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Nagaur.

4. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Churu.

5. Block Chief Medical Officer, Degana, District Nagaur.

6. Block Chief Medical Officer, Sardarshahar, District Churu.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. K. Poonia. 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.

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

which has been affirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated

(2 of 2) [CW-9809/2020]

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 82-Sachin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)