Rajasthan High Court
Dr. Shubham Jain S/O Mr. Rakesh ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 10 November, 2022
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
(1.) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12611/2022
1. Dr. Nishant Gopaal S/o Shri Ajai Gopal, Aged About 30
Years, R/o 340 Eldeco City, IIM Rd, Lucknow, Up-226013
2. Dr. Santoshkumar P Hammigi, S/o Shri Parameshwarappa
B Hammigi, Aged About 28 Years, R/o - 709, Vanasiri
Nagar, Sattur, Dharwad, Karnataka 580009.
3. Dr. Jaanakhi V M D/o Shri Muthu V, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Plot No 27 East, 3Rd Cross Street, Harihar Ezhil
Nagar, Airport, Tiruchirappalli, Tamilnadu 620007
4. Dr. Karthika Prasad S/o Shri Anil Prasad N S, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Prasadam, Parakode P.o, Pathanamthitta
Dist, Kerala, Pin 691554
5. Dr. Ravi Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o 27 Bagdo Ki Dhani , Sinwar
Jaipur 302012
6. Dr. Keerti Gogra D/o Shri Vikram Kumar Gogra, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o F-85 Panchsheel Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur
7. Dr. Shashank S Bagali S/o Shri Shankar B Bagali, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o .r.s No. 1239, P.no. 09, Near Om
Shanti, Shanti Nagar Athani. Dist Belagavi, Karnataka.
8. Dr. Rajesh Ks S/o Shri Srinivasareddy. K, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Kiruwara, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District,
Karnataka 563135
9. Dr. Anshul Madaan S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Madaan, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o 272 New Rose Park, Gulab Devi
Hospital Road, Jalandhar, 144008
10. Dr. Ajmal R S S/o Shri Rahim M C, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Ajmal Manzil, Anchal P O, Kollam Kerala, 691306
11. Dr. Prajwal B G S/o Shri Gaddigesh, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Belanduru, Kenchanala, Hosanagara, Shimoga,
Karnataka-577426
12. Dr. Palak Patel D/o Shri Milen Patel, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o 4 B 232 Sudarshana Nagar Pawan Puri Bikaner.
13. Dr. Vandana S D/o Shri T S Sreenivas, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 27/272A, Theertham, Madappat Link Road,
Manjummel, Udyogamandal P O, Ernakulam, Kerala-
(Downloaded on 10/11/2022 at 09:24:39 PM)
(2 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
683501
14. Dr. Charan Kumar G S/o Shri Govindaraju G M, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Gantiganahalli, Doddaballapura
Taluk, Bangalore Rural Dist.
15. Dr. Somashekhara K K S/o Shri Kotresh K, Aged About 28
Years, R/o H No.1042, 6 Th Ward, Anjineya Extension,
Kotturu, Ballari Dist., Karnataka 583134.
16. Dr. Pruthvi K P S/o Shri Prakash K G, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Ashirwad Building , Ayyappanagar, Hubli Road,
Sirsi , Karnataka 581402
17. Dr. Kheman Grover S/o Shri Chander Mohan Grover, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Police Colony, Sua Road, Giddarbaha,
Punjab-152101
18. Dr. Robin Thakur S/o Shri Jai Singh Thakur, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Vill. Mahaliyat, Po. Killar, Teh. Pangi, Dist.
Chamba , Himachal Pradesh
19. Dr. Mahesh Sagar K S/o Shri P R Krishna Reddy, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o T.kurubarahalli, Thippadoddi Post,
Mulbagal, Kolar,karnataka 563132
20. Dr. Abhay Singh S/o Shri Shiv Swarup, Aged About 32
Years, R/o A-12 Sangwan City, Aligarh , 202002, Up.
21. Dr. Anandu Ranjith S/o Shri J Ranjith, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Devamritham,house No. 40, Sr Nagar , Pattom
P O ,trivandr.um, Kerala, 695004
22. Dr. Sakalesh Hosamani S/o Shri H Shankarappa, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o H No 1-11-56/103 Devaru Colony
,raichur ,karnataka
23. Dr. Siddharth Maanju S/o Shri Abender Singh, Aged About
27 Years, R/o K-18, Suncity, Badpipli Stand, Sikar Road,
Jaipur, Rajasthan 302013
24. Dr. Shinu D/o Shri Naresh Kumar Dua, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Ward No.-1, House No.-1678,dua Mohalla,
Kharkhoda, Sonipat, Haryana, 131402.
25. Dr. Sneh Deswal D/o Shri Ramesh Deswal, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Hno 1124/10 Ramgopal Colony Rohtak
Haryana
26. Dr. Rinku Kumari D/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Ghachiyon Ka Vaas,sumerpur (Pali)
27. Dr. Sonam Singh D/o Shri Vijay Singh, Aged About 29
(Downloaded on 10/11/2022 at 09:24:39 PM)
(3 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
Years, R/o H.no.289/3 New Govind Nagar Ramganj Ajmer
28. Dr. Sunjot Kaur D/o Shri Bhagwant Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Street No.3 Gurdit Nagar, P/o Sadhu Ashram,
Opp. St. Farid School, Hoshiarpur 146001
29. Dr. Vikas Verma S/o Shri Suryaprakash Verma, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o 116D, Ganesh Nagar, University
Road, Udaipur, Rajasthan
30. Dr. Karthik Aiyanna N C S/o Shri Chinnappa N A, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Ballamavatty Village And Post
Napoklu Madikeri Kodagu Karnataka 571214
31. Dr. Mallikarjun K Rayanad S/o Shri Karabasappa, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o 20 Ganga Sadan H No 7-1101/15B/1
Gunj Bank Colony Kalaburagi Karnataka 585104
32. Dr. Lakshita Maherda D/o Shri Satyanarayan Maherda,
Aged About 26 Years, R/o Near Manavbharti School,
Gharsisar Bikaner.
33. Dr. Elika Gupta D/o Shri Sanjay Gupta, Aged About 27
Years, R/o 1441 Sector -14, Faridabad, Haryana 121007.
34. Dr. Abhishek Kumar S/o Shri Anil Kumar Yadav, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Sri Vihar Colony, Power House Road,
Katihar-854105, Bihar
35. Dr. Parul Bansal D/o Shri Suresh Kumar Bansal, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o B 108/a Radhey Shyam Park Extn
Parwana Road Delhi - 110051
36. Dr. Abhishek Karra S/o Shri Dr. Ravindr.a Karra, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Hi Tech Eye Center, Kulam Road,
Nawanshahr, Punjab 144514
37. Dr. Manvika Chandel D/o Shri Anubhav Chandel, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o C-1, Panchsheel Colony, Ajmer Road,
Jaipur -302019
38. Dr.vidyashree D/o Shri Premsingh, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Near Swamy Jina, Pamanakallur,. Manvi Tq Raichur
Dist Karnataka 584120
39. Dr. Vandna D/o Shri Rajendra Prasad, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village/ Post-Ujoli,tehsil- Kotkasim, District-
Alwar, Rajasthan, 301702
40. Dr. Priyanka Inaniya D/o Shri Shivdan Ram Inaniya, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Govt. Hospital,riyan Badi,nagaur,
Rajasthan, 341513
(Downloaded on 10/11/2022 at 09:24:39 PM)
(4 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
41. Dr. Sumeet Sidhu D/o Shri Gurmeet Singh Sidhu, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o 8-E-12Jawahar Nagar, Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan
42. Dr. Hemavati Goudappagoudr. A D/o Shri Ramanagouda,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o 231,haveri
Oni,mangalur,bagalkot, Karnataka,pin-587201.
43. Dr. Surbhi Gupta D/o Shri B L Gupta, Aged About 27
Years, R/o J-123 Mansarover Colony Near Bodheshver
Mahadev Mandir Kalakuan Alwar 301001
44. Dr. Jeevika Gupta D/o Shri Govind Gupta, Aged About 27
Years, R/o House No. 93 C Block Near Civil Hospital
Sirsa,sirsa
45. Dr. Mamta Bijarniya D/o Shri Nathuram Bijarniya, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Dera Duda, Ward No. 05,
Srimadhopur, Sikar (Raj) 332715
46. Dr. Poonam D/o Shri Rohitash, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Vill- Amarpura Khurd , Distt- Jhunjhunu -333516
47. Dr. Bhoomika Pasricha D/o Shri Dr. Aghosh Pasricha, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Flat No. 20-B, Khukhrain
Apartments, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi-110085
48. Dr. Vrishti Goel D/o Shri Mukesh Goel, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Lu 62 Vishakha Enclave Pitampura Delhi
110034
49. Dr. Diksha Kumari Chittara D/o Shri Vijay Prakash
Chittara, Aged About 27 Years, R/o M.p. Khartana Via
Sanwar Tehsil Mavli, Udaipur, Rajasthan 313206
50. Dr. Neha Yadav D/o Shri Ashok Yadav, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Hno 611 ,sector 5, Gurgaon ,12001
51. Dr. Aakanksha Siwach D/o Shri Mukesh Kumar, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o H.no 290A/31, Laxman Vihar, Phase-
2, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pin Code 122001
52. Dr. Anusha Shankar Malapure D/o Dr. Shankar Malapure,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o G-01, Harshrutu Apartments,
Sadashiv Nagar 1St Main, Belgaum, Karnataka 590019
53. Dr. Neha Singh D/o Shri Madan Kumar Singh, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Flat 12B, Ratan Heights, Tagore Hill Road,
Morhabadi, Ranchi-834008,jharkhand
54. Dr. Aditi Arora D/o Shri M K Punjabi, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 44/3 Adke Nagar, Deolali Camp, Nashik,
Maharashtra, 422001
(Downloaded on 10/11/2022 at 09:24:39 PM)
(5 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
55. Dr. Vinita D/o Shri Rajendr.a Prasad Jangid, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Dadia Rampura, Via Reengus, District Sikar,
Rajasthan- 332404
56. Dr. Prathiksha H L D/o Shri Laxman H M, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Door No 47, Shivaji Road , Sagar, Shimoga ,
Karnataka 577401
57. Dr. Parvati Demannavar D/o Shri Dharmanna
Demannavar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Kankanawadi , Tq
Jamakhandi ,dist Bagalkot, Karnataka 587119
58. Dr. Aakash Verma S/o Shri Dr. Bs Verma, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 16 - Arogya Nagar, Rangbari Road, Kota
,rajasthan, Pin 324005
59. Dr. Sugandha Sharma D/o Shri Dr. Arvind Kumar Sha,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o 31/32 , Arpit Nagar , Gandhi
Path Vaishali Nagar Jaipur 302021 Rajasthan.
60. Dr. Aaheli Maiti D/o Shri Ananda Chandr.a Maiti, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Plot No 3, Greenland, Mukundapur
Kolkata 700099
61. Dr. Mohini Sethi D/o Shri Mr. Sanjay Sethi, Aged About 27
Years, R/o H.no 1385, Near Ntc School, Rajpura Town ,
Patiala , Punjab 140401
62. Dr. Kriti Ranga D/o Shri L R Ranga, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o H.no. 1801, Sector 46, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001
63. Dr. Deepika Panwar D/o Shri B.l. Panwar, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 84 Veer Teja Colony, Dadich Nagar, Outside
Third Pole, Mahamandir, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
64. Dr. Toshi Jain D/o Shri Dr. Subodh Jain, Aged About 27
Years, R/o 19A/1 Amarnath Jha Marg George Town
Prayagraj, Up, 211001
65. Dr. Deepa Grewal D/o Shri Dinesh Grewal, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Nm9A, Moh, Karar Khan, Jalandhar 144008
66. Dr. Shamanth Hiremath S/o Shri Shivakumar M.c, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Mathrukripa, Shivanagara 5Th Cross,
Pandeshwara, Mangaluru-575001, Dakshina Kannada (D),
Karnataka
67. Dr. Vaibhav Kumar S/o Shri Dr. Bijoy Kumar, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Flat No 402, C Block, Vikramshila Garden,
Cheshire Home Road, Bariatu, Ranchi Jharkhand-834009
68. Dr. Manojkumar V S/o Shri Venkatesh S, Aged About 30
Years, R/o No 16 New No 31 6Th Cross Swimming Pool
(Downloaded on 10/11/2022 at 09:24:39 PM)
(6 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
Extension Malleswaram Bengaluru Pin 560003.
69. Dr. R. Sanjay S/o Shri C. Ramachandr.an, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Near Ganesh Temple, Kamraj Nagar, Port Blair,
South Andaman, Andaman And Nicobar Islands, 744102
70. Dr. Basavaraj S/o Shri Siddharam Patil, Aged About 30
Years, R/o H.no. 06, At Post Jamaga (J), Aland, Kalaburgi,
Karnataka- 585302
71. Dr. Sajal Gupta D/o Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, Aged About
29 Years, R/o E-53 Shastri Nagar Meerut Behind
Allahabad Bank Meerut (Uttar Pradesh) Pin -250001
72. Dr. Vijendra Bijarnia S/o Shri Ramdev Bijarnia, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o B-169, Jamnapuri Colony, Murlipura
Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302039
73. Dr. Aavishkar Anand S/o Shri K S Ananda, Aged About 28
Years, R/o D/4 C.p.c.r.i Campus Vittal Bantwal Taluk
Dakshina Kannada Karnataka 574243
74. Dr. Jeeva Babu D/o Shri Babu Varghese, Aged About 30
Years, R/o House No A/26, Canara Bank Colony, Chandr
Anagar P.o Palakkad, Kerala - 678007
75. Dr. Carishma S D/o Shri C.bhuvanendr.an, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Athma Harsha, Kiliyoor, Vellarada P.o.,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, 695505
76. Dr. Jose K Jimmy S/o Shri Jimmy K Jose, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Kattikatt, Thumpoly P.o, Alappuzha, Kerala,
688008
77. Dr. Bhavyansh Rathi S/o Shri Mangal Chandr.a Rathi,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o H-08, Het Nagar, Udasar Moad
Jaipur Road Bikaner
78. Dr. Nahar Singh Meena S/o Shri Braj Lal Meena, Aged
About 38 Years, R/o 103 Bhavyaa Green Apartments
Ramnagariya Jagatpura Jaipur 302017
79. Dr. Jaspreet Singh S/o Shri S. Sher Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Village Rosiana, Post Office Saharan Majra,
Distt Ludhiana, Punjab 141117
80. Dr. Rachitha N D/o Shri Nagendr.a M, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 791, 9Th Main, 8Th Cross, C Block, 3Rd Stage,
Vijayanagara, Mysore, Karnataka, 570017
81. Dr. Viram Singh Rathod S/o Shri Amar Singh Rathod,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o Glass Bazaar, Brucepet, Ballari,
583101, Karnataka
(Downloaded on 10/11/2022 at 09:24:39 PM)
(7 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
82. Dr. Ashwini B D/o Shri Vijay Kumar B, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Hno 12-10-51/27/a, Flat 305, Krishna
Ashirwad Apartments, Siyatalab, Raichur, Pin 584102
83. Dr. Bineeta Singh Parihar D/o Shri N. K. Parihar, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Vill Dewalchour Kham, Po Manpur
West, Rampur Road, Haldwani, Distt Nainital,
Uttarakhand, 263139.
84. Dr. Shubham Solanki S/o Shri Rajendra Pal Singh Solanki,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o B-41, Kardhani, Kalwar Road,
Jaipur, 302012
85. Dr.balakrishna S/o Shri Siddalingappa, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Vishwaradhya Nagar,near Balaji Temple, Yadgir,
Karanataka 585201
86. Dr. Vivek V S/o Shri Mallikarjun V, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Door No 6, Ln Temple Street, Roddam Lane, Bellary,
Karnataka Pin -583101
87. Dr. Richa Jain D/o Shri Mr. Raj Kumar Jain, Aged About 28
Years, R/o B-78/602 Pearl Passion, Rajendr.a Marg, Bapu
Nagr, Jaipur 302015
88. Dr. Kapil Dixit S/o Shri Ravishankar Dixit, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Ward No. 08 , Village Jharli Tehsil
Shrimadhopur District Sikar Rajsthaan 332707
89. Dr. Kiran Kumari D/o Shri Tarachand Poonia, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Gungara, Piprali, Sikar.
90. Dr. Aayushi Choudhary D/o Shri Govind Singh, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o S-52, Tara Shanker Pearl Edge, Flat
No. 206, Arvind Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302001
91. Dr. Vysakh. K S/o Shri K. Krishnakumar, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Pulari House Vellinezhi, Cherpulasseri,
Palakkad, Kerala , 679504
92. Dr. Ruchi Pratihar D/o Shri Moti Lal Meena, Aged About 29
Years, R/o 665A Rk Puram Near Ahinsa Circle Kota.
93. Dr. Vanila Jain D/o Shri Bhanu K Jain, Aged About 26
Years, R/o 8, Tilak Colony, Sector 3,hiran Magri, Opp.
Reliance Fresh, Udaipur, Rajasthan Pin 313002
94. Dr. Jeffy Joy.k D/o Shri Joy.k.t, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Kalathuparambil House, Vellangallur P.o, Thrissur, Kerala,
680662
95. Dr. Sharath Kumar M S/o Shri Madegowda, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Mahadeshwara Nilaya Near Byraveshwara
(Downloaded on 10/11/2022 at 09:24:39 PM)
(8 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
Temple 5Th Cross Halahalli Mandya Karnataka 571401
96. Dr. Anagha R D/o Shri Raveendran, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Krishnakripa,vattoly Bazar, Balussery, Kozhikode,
Kerala, 673612
97. Dr. Tarushi Gupta D/o Shri Ramawatar Natani, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o A 312 Mahesh Nagar 80 Feet Road
Jaipur
98. Dr. Saachi Gupta D/o Shri Sandeep Gupta, Aged About 28
Years, R/o C - 147, Preet Vihar, Near Petrol Pump, Delhi
110092
99. Dr. Nikita Choudhary D/o Shri Samunder Singh, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o 1 D - 100, J.n.v. Colony, Bikaner
334001
100. Dr. Gurpreet Kaur D/o Shri Roshan Singh, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 257, Street No 10, North Estate, Bathinda,
Punjab- 151001
101. Dr. Payal Charaya D/o Shri Suresh Kumar, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Ward No.16, Dabli Rathan, Hanumangarh Jn.
Rajasthan 335801.
102. Dr. Amal Mohan S/o Shri Mohanan S, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Mithaviya, Kottukunnam Po, Vamanapuram,
Venjaramood, Trivandr.um, Kerala, 695606
103. Dr. Apoorva Sharma D/o Shri Rajendra Sharma, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o 4-E, Hudco Place, New Delhi-110049
104. Dr. Sidhya D/o Shri Satish Kumar Choudhary, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Professors Colony Dighi West Darbhanga
Bihar 846004
105. Dr. Akriti Aggarwal D/o Shri Madan Mohan Aggarwal,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o House No. 21220, Ajit Road,
Bathinda, Punjab 151001
106. Dr. Sulika V. Kinimi D/o Shri K. Vikato Kinimi, Aged About
31 Years, R/o H. No - 188, Old Dairy Farm Road,
Kushiabill, Purana Bazaar, Dimapur - 797116, Nagaland
107. Dr. Saransh Mittal S/o Shri Mukesh Mittal, Aged About 28
Years, R/o House No. 33, Ward No. 14, Padampur, Dist -
Sgnr (Raj.) 335041
108. Dr. Meghna Aggarwal D/o Shri Inderjeet, Aged About 29
Years, R/o B8/283, Quilla Mohalla, Khudi Gate , Barnala
Pin 148101, Punjab
(Downloaded on 10/11/2022 at 09:24:39 PM)
(9 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
109. Dr. Vivek S/o Shri G. Veeranna, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
10-3/75/4, Garden Road, Vithal Nagar, Kalaburagi,
Karnataka 585103.
110. Dr. Poornima K R D/o Shri K Rajakumar, Aged About 29
Years, R/o A4 324 Vbhc Palm Heaven , Doddabelle Village
, Kengeri , Bangalore 560061
111. Dr. Aishwarya Malode D/o Shri Laxman Malode, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Shri Vittal,house No 33, Vinayak
Nagar, Hubli, Karnataka -580021
112. Dr. Aneesh Joshi S/o Shri Dr. Ashish Joshi, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Usha Chikitsalaya, Fawara Chawk, Neemuch,
Madhya Pradesh
113. Dr. Madhurya M D/o Shri Manjunath A S, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 821, Panduranga Nilaya, 8Th Cross, Hebbal
2Nd Stage, Mysore, Karnataka 570017
114. Dr. Anuraj K S/o Shri Pradeep Kumar, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Kacheri House, Kakkur P.o, Kozhikode, Kerala,
673613.
115. Dr. Stephen Alexander S/o Shri E A Alexander, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Enchenattil House Perumbaikadu
P.o , Samkranthi , Kottayam, Kerala 686016
116. Dr. Pooja P Jamadar D/o Shri Prakashsing, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Near Dandin Durga Temple,savanur Dist-
Haveri, Karnataka Pin -581118
117. Dr. Aswathy Joseph D/o Shri Joseph Joseph, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Palliparambil House, Palace Ward,
Alappuzha, Pin 688011.
118. Dr. Vignesh Kumar S S/o Shri Sabari Malaiyan G, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o No1/2, Kalingarayan First Street, Old
Washermanpet, Chennai 600021
119. Dr. Roopam D/o Shri Rajeev, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
807/23 D.l.f. Colony, Rohtak, Haryana-124001.
120. Dr. Sangeetha J Nair D/o Shri Jayaprakash P, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Charinjethu House, Nrra 91 A, Byelane 5,
Nethaji Road, Near Power House, Aluva 683101,
Ernakulam, Kerala
121. Dr. Manish Kumar S/o Shri Krishan Kumar, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Vpo-Bawwa Teh- Kosli Distt- Rewari Haryana
123303
122. Dr. Krishna Pal Kohli S/o Shri Rajan Lal, Aged About 26
(Downloaded on 10/11/2022 at 09:24:39 PM)
(10 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
Years, R/o Village Khurmola, Bagiyal Khet, Teh. Dunda,
Distt. Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand, Pin. 249152
123. Dr. Saurabh Bagra S/o Shri Suresh Chandra Bagra, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o 118, Salasar City, C-Block,
Munnawali Dhani,niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur,
Rajasthan,302012
124. Dr. Arpit Goel, S/o Shri Dinesh Goel, Aged About 29
Years, R/o M/s D.k. Electricals Tosham Road Bhiwani
125. Dr. Vipul Swami S/o Shri Suresh Swami, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Swami Nursing Home, Ward No 18, Teh-
Bhadra, Distt- Hanumangarh, Rajasthan
126. Dr. Brateen Roy S/o Shri Bijan Kanti Roy, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Flat No A3N, Landmark Apt, Anil Nagar,
Rajgarh Link Road, Guwahati, Assam, 781007
127. Dr. Archita Makharia D/o Shri Govind K Makharia, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Tg3/1A, Orchid Gardens, Suncity,
Sector 54, Gurugram, 122002
128. Dr. Sahil Kharbanda S/o Shri Charan Singh, Aged About
26 Years, R/o H.no 1257 Lal Chand Colony Ward No 1
Jhajjar Haryana 124103
129. Dr. Mukul Singhal S/o Shri Dinesh Gupta, Aged About 27
Years, R/o C-1/301, Neelpadamkunj Apartments, Sector-
1, Opposite Dabur, Vaishali, Distt. Ghaziabad, Up-201010
130. Dr. Akshaya B Ajish D/o Shri Ajish Kumar C S, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Adarsh Angadical South Po Kodumon
691555,pathanamthitta Kerala
131. Dr. Atul Agarwal S/o Shri Jugal Kishore Agarwal, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o 66 Jai Nagar Rampura Road
Sanganer Jaipur
132. Dr. Akansha Jain D/o Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Aged About
28 Years, R/o H. No. 2558 Gali Purohitan, Jiwali Bazar,
Rewari, Haryana 123401
133. Dr. Surbhi D/o Shri Hanumantha Singh Faujdar, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o 8 Gangapur Enclave, Tonk Road,
Sitapura, Jaipur. 302022
134. Dr. Varalakshmi Karasala D/o Shri Eleesha Karasala, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Sri Hemadurga Signature Apartment,
Ravindr.a Nagar 2St Line, Guntur Andhrapradesh.
135. Dr. Monika Garg D/o Shri Yogesh Kumar Garg, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o 232/4 Jagriti Vihar, Meerut, Uttar
(Downloaded on 10/11/2022 at 09:24:39 PM)
(11 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
Pradesh, 250004
136. Dr. Pranav Pujari S/o Shri Naveen Chandra Pujari, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Sri Niwas, Bithoriya No1, Haldwani,
Nainital, Uttarakhand, 263139
137. Dr. Kirandeep Kaur D/o Shri Manjit Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Street No 6, Baba Fateh Singh Nagar,
Phagwara, Distt Kapurthala, Punjab , 144401
138. Dr. Virali Trivedi D/o Shri Avinash Chandr.a Trivedi, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o 100 Maldas Street Pathko Ki Pole
Udaipur Rajasthan 313001
139. Dr. Deepti Shah D/o Shri Dinesh Shah, Aged About 27
Years, R/o 6/64, Vidyadhar Nagar, Sector6, Jaipur 302039
140. Dr. Kshama Rao D/o Shri Rohit H Kumar, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Ananda Nilaya , C/o Dr. Vasanth Rao,
Ramachandrashetty Layout, Kaggalipura, Kanakapura
Road, Bangalore, Karnataka 560082
141. Dr. Kamalpreet Kaur D/o Shri Jaswinder Singh, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Village Nawan Pind (Bahadur), Tibri,
Gurdaspur, Punjab, Pin 143530
142. Dr. Yashshwani Gaur D/o Shri Naveen Chand, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Hno 2596 Block C Sushant City, Sector 32
Kurukshetra, 136118
143. Dr. Sunilgouda Mudigoudra S/o Shri Goudappagouda,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o 217 Bhagya Nagar Ramdurg.
Dist-Belgaum. Karnataka 591123
144. Dr. Richa Nagar D/o Shri Rajesh Nagar, Aged About 28
Years, R/o B-23,devi Path, Nehru Nagar, Pani Pech,
Jaipur-302016
145. Dr. Pooja Kochar D/o Shri Vimal Chand Kochar, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o In Front Of Arya Samaj School,jail
Road, Bikaner
146. Dr. Shailja Kumari D/o Shri Somvir Singh, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Vpo -Paluwas Tehsil And District -Bhiwani,
Haryana, 127021
147. Dr. Vidya Tharu K D/o Shri Dr. K V Rao, Aged About 29
Years, R/o 104, Ayaachi Apartments, Sector 45,
Gurgaon , Haryana- 122002
148. Dr. Irum Jawaid D/o Shri Md Jawaid Ahmed Shamsi, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Top Floor,building 2/70,jangpura
-A,new Delhi 110014
(Downloaded on 10/11/2022 at 09:24:39 PM)
(12 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
149. Dr. Gokul S/o Shri Swaminathan, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o No-20/9, Sadayappa Nagar, Byepass Road , Musiri-
621211, Tiruchirapalli (Dt), Tamilnadu
150. Dr. Ajay S/o Shri Dalip Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
House No. 142 Sector 7 Gohana District Sonepat Haryana
151. Dr. Samiksha Meena D/o Shri Ghan Shyam Meena, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Plot No 15 , Nand Vihar Model Town
C Malviya Nagar Jaipur, Rajasthan 302017.
152. Dr. D Sabarish S/o Shri M K Dhavamani, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 152/34 Dr. Besant Road, Triplicane, Chennai
600005, Tamilnadu
153. Dr. Abinayah Kanniah D/o Shri K.kanniah, Aged About 29
Years, R/o 40/25,third Street, Mallika Nagar, Tambaram
West,chennai, Tamilnadu-600045
154. Dr. Ruby Singhal D/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singhal, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o House No. 81,dhobi Pada
Bari,dholpur,rajasthan-328021
155. Dr. Abhishek Ghai S/o Shri Sunil Ghai, Aged About 30
Years, R/o 15/1 Hig Flats, Sanjay Place,agra,uttarpradesh
156. Dr. Thillaiarasu S/o Shri Jayavelan, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o 3/75 , Nambipatti , H.doddampatty , Harur ,
Dharmapuri ( Dt ) , Tamilnadu - 636903
157. Dr. Deepika D/o Shri Rajesh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o H.
No. 623, Ward 16, Chhavni, Jhajjar, Haryana, Pin 124103
158. Dr. Ritesh Rathee S/o Shri Jitender Rathee, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Flat A 051, Gulshan Ikebana, Sector 143,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh, 201306
159. Dr. Nupur Jolly D/o Shri Vinay Kumar Jolly, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 3/359 Malviya Nagar Jaipur Rajasthan 302017
160. Dr. Caren Candace Selvin D/o Shri Bhagianathen Selvin,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o House No 1, Lakeview,
Landsdownpark, Thuruvickal Post, Trivandr.um 695011.
161. Dr. Anjali D/o Shri Ravinder Kumar, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Sfs Flat No. 84, Rajouri Apartments, Opp. Govt Of
India Press, Mayapuri, New Delhi- 110064
162. Dr. S. Arun Sathish S/o Shri Sivalingam, Aged About 37
Years, R/o No 11/14, Nehru Street, Teachers Colony,
Ambattur, Chennai, Tamilnadu, 600053
163. Dr. Shalima S D/o Shri V M Surendr.ababu, Aged About
(Downloaded on 10/11/2022 at 09:24:39 PM)
(13 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
27 Years, R/o Suvasha Nivas. Plot No30,31. Mothilal
Nehru Nagar. Jothy Street. Navarkulam. Lawspet.
Pondicherry 605008
164. Dr. Navdeep Chohan S/o Shri Kulwant Singh Chohan,
Aged About 33 Years, R/o H No.105, Dashmesh Nagar,
Ferozepur City, Punjab Pin 152002
165. Dr. Arun M A S/o Shri Ananthappa P, Aged About 30
Years, R/o 310, 9Th Cross, 1St Stage, Jayasuryanagar,
Vidhana Soudha Layout, Kogilu, Yelahanka Bangalore
560064
166. Dr. Nivedita D/o Shri Mr Avtar Singh, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Qtr No. R312 , Dera Baba Jaimal Singh, Dera
Beas, Distt Amritsar
167. Dr. Shivananda P Hireningappanavar S/o Shri
Pundaleekappa H, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Shanthi
Nilaya,near Bus Stand,radder Timmapur,badami
Aluk,bagalkot,karnataka 587206
168. Dr. Ankit Saini S/o Shri Karan Singh Saini, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Hno. 41/type-2/sector-1 Bhel, Haridwar,
Uttarakhand 249403.
169. Dr. Poonam Awana D/o Shri Satpal Awana, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Behind Vasu General Store , Patel Nagar
Bikaner 334003 Rajasthan
170. Dr. Vishwanath K G S/o Shri K.v.govindarajulu, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o 2/42, Karikera Village And Post,
Gudibanda Mandal, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh
171. Dr. Ashok Sharma S/o Shri Late Lalaram Sharma, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Sarangpura Bad K Balaji Jaipur ,
302026
172. Dr. Inderpreet Kaur D/o Shri Ajit Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Flat No.2-3, Nakshatra Apartments, Jonapur,
New Delhi-110047
173. Dr. Nidhi Shrivastava D/o Shri Rajendra Kumar
Shrivastava, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 36, Miyanpur-1,
Hussenabad, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh , India, 222002
174. Dr.mayuresh M Hanchnal S/o Shri Mahantesh I Hanchnal,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o Behind Dr. Geeta Joshi
Clinic,4Th Cross, Saptapur, Dharwad 580001, Karnataka
175. Dr. Prashant Kumar S/o Shri Satyadeo Singh, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Flat 301 Shiv Shourya Residency Adarsh
(Downloaded on 10/11/2022 at 09:24:39 PM)
(14 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
Nagar Jaipur
176. Dr. Shivaraj Hadimani S/o Shri Siddappa, Aged About 29
Years, R/o S/o Siddappa Hadimani At Post Tumbagi
586214, Tq. Muddebihal Dist. Vijayapur Karnataka.
177. Dr. Reshmi Harikumar Pillai D/o Shri Harikumar Pillai,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o Karyatt H. No. 44/746 , Off
Sastha Temple Road , Kaloor Kochi 682017
178. Dr. Nikhil Basil Tom S/o Shri Tomy Mathew, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Kooran House Mekkadu P.o Nedumbassery,
Distt. Ernakulam, Kerala.
179. Dr. Varun Kumar M C S/o Shri Chandregowda M N, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Renuka Jewellers, Bagur Road,
Chhannarayapattana, Hassan (Distt). 573116, Karnataka.
180. Dr. Nikhil Sirohi S/o Shri Ajay Kumar Sirohi, Aged About
28 Years, R/o House No-24 Sector-9 Faridabad Haryana-
121006
181. Dr. Shelly Sapra D/o Shri Ashok Sapra, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 66 A Dda Lig Flats Motia Khan Jhandewalan
New Delhi 110055
182. Dr. Raghavendr.a G S/o Shri Ramanjaneya G, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Sri Rama Raksha Nilaya,pampa Housing
Colony Manvi 584123,dist Raichur ,karnataka
183. Dr. Juhi Agarwal D/o Shri Ramesh Agarwal, Aged About
28 Years, R/o 103, Balaji Enclave, Begur Koppa Road,
Yelenahalli, Bangalore, Karnataka-560014
184. Dr. Poornima.n D/o Shri Nagaraju.k, Aged About 29
Years, R/o 141C, Kiran Nilaya, Vinayaka Nagara, Hanur,
Chamrajanagara District, Karnataka 571439.
185. Dr. Ansika Yadav D/o Dayaram Yadav, Aged About 31
Years, R/o House No. 447, Chhjupura Colony,
Mahendragarh, Haryana.
186. Dr. Alaksh Kher S/o Shri Rakesh Kher, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 59, Sec-6, Chiranjiv Vihar, Ghaziabad, U.p.,
201002
187. Dr. Pratibha D/o Shri Nandram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Vpo-Salarpur, Teh-Tijara, Distt-Alwar 301018
188. Dr. Naveen Kumar S/o Shri Rajpal Singh Yadav, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o Village-Shekhawash, Post-Chandpur,
Teh-Mundawar, Dist-Alwar, 301407
(Downloaded on 10/11/2022 at 09:24:39 PM)
(15 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
189. Dr. Vaishali C D/o Shri Chandr.asekar S, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 23, Gf, First Street, Andal Gardens,
Ramapuram, Chennai-600089
190. Dr. Urvashi Sharma D/o Shri Sanjiv Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o House No 5/492, Station Street,
Khalsapur Road,tarn Taran, Punjab Pin 143401
191. Dr. Vimal Soni S/o Shri Sampat Raj, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Kailash Nagar, Ward No.2, Sanchore, Jalore,
Rajasthan,343041
192. Dr. Manasvin Sareen S/o Shri Dr. Devendr.a Sareen, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o 27-F, New Fatehpura , Near Sukhadia
Circle, Udaipur-313001, Rajasthan
193. Dr. Kannupriya Choudhary D/o Shri Ramdev Choudhary,
Aged About 26 Years, R/o Bhagat Singh Colony, Near Lic
Office, Nokha (Bikaner) Pin 334803
194. Dr. Navleen Khurana D/o Shri Gurinder Singh Khurana,
Aged About 29 Years, R/o 117-A, Padmawati Colony 1St ,
Nirman Nagar, Jaipur
195. Dr. Vitusha Suri D/o Shri Dr. Anil Suri, Aged About 28
Years, R/o A-2, National Institute Of Immunology(Nii),
Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi-110067
196. Dr. Chanchal Arora D/o Shri Dharamveer Arora, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o 265/457, Sector-26, Pratap Nagar,
Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302033
197. Dr. Sakshi Agarwal D/o Shri Dr. Ajay Agarwal, Aged About
28 Years, R/o A-788, Kamla Nagar, Agra, Uttar
Pradesh,282005
198. Dr. Ravina Yadav D/o Shri Vijay Singh Yadav, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Bhrathari Colony, Ward No
35,behror,alwar,rajasthan,301701
199. Dr. Sunjot Kaur D/o Shri Bhagwant Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Street No. 3 Gurdit Nagar, P/o Sadhu Ashram,
Opp. St. Farid School, Hoshiarpur
200. Dr. Akshata C Angadi D/o Shri Chandrasekar, Aged About
28 Years, R/o D317 Shantinikethan Bhairidevarakoppa
Hubli-580031, Karnataka
201. Dr. Swati D/o Shri Arvind Kumar, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o 104, Rams Lakeview Meadows, Bagalur Cross,
Yelahanka, Bangalore 560063.
202. Dr. Sidharth Sharma S/o Shri Narender Kumar, Aged
(Downloaded on 10/11/2022 at 09:24:39 PM)
(16 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
About 27 Years, R/o A-506, Gali No. 1, Nathu Colony,
Nathupura, Delhi-110084
203. Dr. Vishal Gupta S/o Shri Brajesh Prasad Gupta, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o H.c Ghosh Lane , Near Bhagat Singh
Chowk Madhupur Dist Deoghar Jharkahnd 815353
204. Dr. Himanshu Nagar S/o Shri Chothmal Nagar, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o V/p- Siswali, Teh. Mangrol, Dist.-
Baran, 325206
205. Dr. Shreya Pradhan D/o Shri Rajeshwar Nath Pradhan,
Aged About 30 Years, R/o 20/21 Bhrigu Path, Mansarovar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan 302020
206. Dr. Anjuman Sayyed D/o Shri Sayyed Irashad Ali, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o House No. 148, Shamshan Chauraha,
Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur 302004
207. Dr. Kuldeep Singh S/o Shri Baljit Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Vpo- Ghogra, Tehsil- Dasuya, Hoshiarpur,
Punjab , 144205
208. Dr. Prachika Indora D/o Shri Surat Singh Indora, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o House No 2183, Sector 3 Part,
Rohtak, Haryana
209. Dr. Bharti D/o Shri Vikram Singh, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o House No 4 Mandela Pada,bori Tehsil Garhi Dis.
Banswara 327001
210. Dr. Akshita Gupta D/o Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o 17 Priti Nagar, Hisar, Haryana -
125001.
211. Dr. Sapna Choudhary D/o Shri Narendr.a Singh
Dangawas, Aged About 28 Years, R/o S. R. Choudhary
Memorial Hospital, Behind Passport Office, Fatehpur Road,
Sikar- 332001, Rajasthan
212. Dr. Komal D/o Shri Satbir Singh Dabla, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 395/7 Bharat Nagar Bhiwani
213. Dr. Laleeta Meena D/o Shri Thawar Mal, Aged About 29
Years, R/o 88Jatto Ka Mohalla V.p Bairas Ramgarh
Shekhawati Sikar
214. Dr. Nikitha Elavasari M D/o Shri Sv Murthy, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 71, G Block, 12 Th Street, Annanagar East,
Chennai 600102. Tamilnadu
215. Dr. Shreesh Kumar S/o Shri Shish Ram, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Vill Kandhran Post.thanmathui Tahsil
(Downloaded on 10/11/2022 at 09:24:39 PM)
(17 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
Sadulpur.dist Churu 331013
216. Dr. Vishal S/o Shri Surender Kumar, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o H.num 35, Patelnagar, Behind Bd Mill, Ambala Cantt,
Haryana-133001
217. Dr. Jasveer Ola S/o Shri Dalip Ola, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Kankara Barrod, Behror, Alwar, Rajasthan, 301020
218. Dr. Cremica Gupta D/o Shri Dharminder Gupta, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Gupta Trading , Bank Road ,
Chamkaur Sahibropar Pin 140112
219. Dr. Kashinatha Pujari Y S/o Shri Yamanappa Pujari, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o 177 Near Durga Devi Temple
Neelanagar Post Shirur Taluk/district Bagalkot Karnataka.
220. Dr. Priya D/o Shri Rajender, Aged About 29 Years, R/o H-
No-541 Sector-23 Huda Bhiwani Haryana
221. Dr. Amrita Kesari D/o Shri Amarnath Kesari, Aged About
28 Years, R/o F 53 Income Tax Colony, Sec 21/22, C.b.d.
Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400614.
222. Dr. Swati Purohit D/o Narnarayan Purohit, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Outside Chandpole Gate, Near Om Ji Ki School,
Sikar, Rajasthan.
223. Dr. Shivani Kabra D/o Dr. Kailash Kabra, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 10-S-1, R.c. Vyas Colony, Bhilwara, Rajasthan
- 311001.
224. Dr. Kshitij Kumar S/o Brij Kishore Gothwal, Aged About
29 Years, R/o B-414, Mahesh Nagar, 80 Ft. Road, Jaipur-
302015 (Raj.).
225. Dr.simran Thareja D/o S.l. Thareja, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Thareja Children Hospital, Raising Nagar, Distt.
Shriganganagar 335051.
226. Dr. Seema Kalasua D/o Shanker Lal Ji, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village Jambuda, The. Semari, Distt. Udaipur
(Raj.).
227. Dr. Namdeep Kaur D/o Balwinder Singh, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Lehal Khurd, P.o. Bhutal Kalan, Tehsil Lehra,
District Sangrur, Punjab - 148031.
228. Dr. Aishwarya Gupta D/o Ram Mohan Gupta, Aged About
29 Years, R/o 157, Bharat Nagar, Bathinda, Punjab -
151001.
229. Dr. Sneha Murarka D/o Sanjay Murarka, Aged About 30
(Downloaded on 10/11/2022 at 09:24:39 PM)
(18 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
Years, R/o C-802, Amrut Kunj, Bhattar Road, Surat,
Gujarat - 395007.
230. Dr. P. Gokulakannan S/o T.k. Palanisamy, Aged About 30
Years, R/o 15/16 Ganeshpuram, Manapalli (P.o.),
Mohanor, Namakkal (Dt) Tamilnadu.
231. Dr. Yashik Aneja S/o Sunil Aneja, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o House No. B-249, Jhulle Lal Colony, Fazilka, Punjab.
232. Dr. Somya Dulara D/o Suresh Dulara, Aged About 28
Years, R/o House No. 318, Block-7, Devaashish City, Kota,
Rajasthan.
233. Dr. Lipi Mittal D/o Naresh Mitaal, Aged About 27 Years,
R/odp-653, Shekhpura, Palwal, Haryana.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health Services, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director (P.h.), Medical And Health Services, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Swasthaya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar,
Jaipur, 302007 (Raj.).
3. The Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department,
Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. The Chairman, D.m/m.ch/m.d./m.s. Candidates Allotment
Board- 2022, Ruhs College Of Dental Sciences, Subhash
Nagar, Behind T.b. Hospital, Jaipur (Raj.).
5. The Principal And Controller, Sawai Man Singh Medical
College, Wr49 - 8J8, New Sms Campus Rd., Gangawal
Park, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).
6. The Principal, Medical College And Controller, Attached
Hospital Group, Rangwadi Road Sector- A, Rangwadi,
Kota (Raj.).
7. The Principal And Controller, Dr. Sampurnanand Medical
College And Associated Group Of Colleges, Jodhpur (Raj.).
8. The Principal, Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia Medical
College, Bhilwara (Raj.).
9. The Principal And Controller, Rajasthan Medical Education
Society, Govt. Medical College, Barmer (Raj.)
10. The Principal And Controller, Pd. Deendayal Upadhyaya
Medical College, Churu (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 10/11/2022 at 09:24:39 PM)
(19 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
11. The Principal And Controller, Sardar Patel Medical College
And Associated Group Of Hospitals (P.b.m.), Bikaner
(Raj.)
12. The Principal And Controller, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical
College And Associated Group Of Hospitals, Ajmer (Raj.).
13. The Principal And Controller, Rabindranath Tagore Medical
College And Associated Group Of Hospitals, Udaipur
(Raj.).
14. The Principal And Controller, Ruhs College Of Medical
Sciences, Jaipur (Raj.).
15. Dr. Jitendra Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Harfool Singh
Choudhary, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Behind Sbbj Bank,
Jaitpura, Chomu, Jaipur (Raj.)- 303704.
16. Dr. Manisha Jain D/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Jain, Aged About
28 Years, R/o E-182, Opposite Shiv Park, Ambabari,
Jaipur (Raj.)- 302039.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11531/2022
1. Dr. Krishnapriya S. Kumar D/o Shri Sajeev Kumar G.,
aged about 28 Years, R/o Plot No.75, Gali No.7, Mahadev
Nagar, SKIT College Road, Ramnagariya, Jagatpura,
Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Dr. Toshika Agarwal D/o Shri Rajendra Agarwal, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o 2-F-2, Housing Board, Shastri Nagar,
Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Dr. Rohan Grotra S/o Shri Yogesh Grotra, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Flat No.302, Vanshika Residency, House
No.615, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. Dr. Syed Ahamed Muftah S/o Shri Syed Nizam Babu, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o A-3, Subash Nagar, Shastri Nagar,
Jaipur (Raj.)
5. Dr. Siddharth Jain S/o Shri Pawan Kumar Jain, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o B-10, Resident Doctor Hostel, SMS
Medical College, Jaipur (Raj.)
6. Dr. Deepak Shanker S S/o Shri Santosh Kumar KB, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o 376A, Gurunanakpura, Rajapark,
Jaipur (Raj.)
7. Dr. Rishab Jain S/o Shri Manoj Kumar Jain, Aged About 26
(20 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
Years, R/o 122, Himmat Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary,
Department of Medical and Health Services, Govt. of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director (P.H.), Medical and Health Services, Govt. of
Rajasthan, Swasthaya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar,
Jaipur, 302007 (Raj.).
3. The Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department,
Govt. of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. The Principal Controller, Sawai Man Singh Medical College,
New SMS Campus Road, Gangawal Park, Adarsh Nagar,
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12617/2022
Dr. Tahsim Anwar S/o Md. Tahir, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Master Colony, Rajgangpur, Odisha- 770017.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary,
Department of Medical and Health Services, Govt. of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director (P.H.), Medical and Health Services, Govt. of
Rajasthan, Swasthaya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar,
Jaipur, 302007 (Raj.).
3. The Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department,
Govt. of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. The Principal and Controller, Sardar Patel Medical College
and Associated Group of PBM Hospitals, Bikaner (Raj.).
5. The Chairman, D.M/M.Ch/M.S. Candidates Allotment
Board- 2022, RUHS College of Dental Sciences, Subhash
Nagar, Behind T.B. Hospital, Jaipur (Raj.).
6. The Principal and Controller, Sawai Man Singh Medical
College, New SMS Campus Road, Gangawal Park, Adarsh
Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).
7. The Principal, Medical College and Controller, Attached
Hospital Group, Rangwadi Road, Sector-A, Rangwadi,
(21 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
Kota (Raj.).
8. The Principal and Controller, Dr. Sampurnanand Medical
College and Associate Group Of Colleges, Jodhpur (Raj.).
9. Dr. Jitendra Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Harfool Singh
Choudhary, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Behind SBBJ Bank,
Jaitpura, Chomu, Jaipur (Raj.)- 303704.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12656/2022
Dr. Beena Sen D/o Arvind Sen, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
101/48, Subhash Nagar Kachchi Basti, Nanta Road, Kunhari,
Girdharpura, Kota (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India, through Secretary Government of India,
Directorate General of Health Services, Nirman Bhawan,
Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi.
2. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary,
Department of Medical Education RajMES, Secretariat,
Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Commissioner, Medical Education Department, Directorate
of Medical Education RAJMES, "Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan"
Govind Marg, Jaipur.
4. Director, Medical Education Department, Directorate of
Medical Education RAJMES, "Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan",
Govind Marg, Jaipur.
5. Principal & Controller, Rajasthan University of Health
Science, RUHS Medical College, Jaipur.
6. Principal & Controller, Sardar Patel Medical College &
Hospital, Bikaner.
7. Registrar, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal
(M.P).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13307/2022
1. Dr. Shubham Jain S/o Mr. Rakesh Jain, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Munsi Bazar Near Motherland Public School
Alwar
2. Dr. Mayank Yadav S/o Mr. Vijay Pal Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o 15, Tanwar Colony, Alwar
(22 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
3. Dr. Shamanth Hiremath S/o Mr. Shivakumar M.C, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o House No.23-12-1058/13(4)
Mathrukripa, Shivanagara 5th Cross, Pandeshwara,
Mangaluru-575001, Karnataka
4. Dr. Mohd Shaloo S/o Mr. Mond Akram, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Gulzarpura Makrana District Nagour Rajasthan
341505
5. Dr. Anil Sankol Sm S/o Mr.Mallikarjunappa Sr, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Sri Rudreshwara Nilaya Behind Police
Quarters Rambhapuri Layout Channagiri Davanre
6. Dr.Apoorva Sharma D/o Mr. Rajendra Sharma, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o 4-E, Hudco Place, New Delhi-110049
7. Dr. Sam Mathew S/o Mr. Mathew Joseph, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Pakalomattom House, Edappady P.O., Pala,
Kottayam Kerala 686578
8. Dr. Veena M D/o Mr. Madhusoodhana Marar, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Neelima, Ponekkara Road, Edapally, Cochin
682024 Kerala
9. Dr. Haritha Ravindran S/o Mr. Ravindran P, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Sree Valsam, Near Old Tile Factory, Thenur
P.O., Palakkad, Kerala- 678612
10. Dr. Prashant Santlani S/o Mr. Rajesh Santlani, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Lav Kush Nagar Tonk Phatak Jaipur
11. Dr. Shivangi Gupta D/o Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, Aged About
29 Years, R/o A-604, Crossing Republic, Gaziabad
12. Dr. Shridevi P Edigar D/o Mr. Prabudev Edigar, Aged About
28 Years, R/o 170 Shivanandnagar Navanagar Hubli
580025 Karnataka
13. Dr. Monika, D/o Jagdish Chander, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o H.no 179-B, Sector 7, Gohana, Haryana
14. Dr. Rakesh Kumar Jangir, S/o Raychand Jangir, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Dudoli, Teh. Didwana Nagaur
15. Dr. Jestin Alias, S/o Alias V Paul, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Valiathottathil House, Ramamangalam P.O.,
Ernakulam Dt, Kerala
16. Dr. Ayushi Saxena, D/o Akhilesh Saxena, Aged About 29
Years, R/o - 121/170, Vijay Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur
17. Dr. S Renjana, S/o K S Sasikumar, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Kaippallil House, Kadappakada PO, Kollam - 691008,
(23 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
Kerala
18. Dr. Jongpongyangla N Imti, S/o M Nungsang Imti, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o - House No. 9, E Khel, 4 th Mile,
Diphupar Dimapur - 797115, Nagaland
19. Dr. Poornima Mundanattu, D/o Sasidharan M R, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o - Mundanattu (H), Venginissery,
Thrissur, Kerala - 680563
20. Dr. Sreehari J, S/o K G Jayakumar, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Anitha Bhavan, Prayar P O, Oachira, Alappuzha,
Kerala - 690563
21. Dr. Prachi Mathur D/o Mr. Atul Mathur, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Green Park, Khatipura Road, Jaipur- 302021
22. Dr. Namrata Kaushik D/o Yogendra Kaushik, R/o Ramni
Kunj New Colony, MI Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary,
Department of Medical and Health Services Govt. of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director (P.H.), Medical and Health Services, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Swasthaya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar,
Jaipur, 302007 (Raj.).
3. The Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department,
Govt. of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. The Principal Controller, Sawai Man Singh Medical College,
New SMS Campus Road, Gangwal Park, Adarsh Nagar,
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
(2.) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15021/2022
Dr.Anurag Bhakhar S/o Shri Atmajeet Singh Bhakhar, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Village-5 PPB, P.O. Ghamodwali, Tehsil
Padampur, District Sriganganagar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary
to the Government, Medical Education Department,
Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Raj.
(24 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
2. The Director (P.H.), Medical and Health Services, Govt.
of Rajasthan, Swasthaya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Ashok
Nagar, Jaipur, 302007 (Raj.)
3. The Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department,
Govt. of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.)
4. The Principal, Sawai Man Singh Medical College and
Controller of the Attached Hospitals, SMS Campus, JLN
Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vigyan Shah, Adv. with Mr.Akshit
Gupta, Adv. & Ms.Sarah S. Sharma,
Adv.
Ms.Purvit Mathur, Adv. & Mr.Kushagra
Sharma, Adv.
Mr.Majhar Hussain, Adv. & Mr.Sameer
Khan, Adv.
Mr.Dinesh Yadav, Adv. (SBCWP
No.15021/2022)
For Respondent(s) : Mr.M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General
assisted by Mr.Darsh Pareek, Adv. &
Mr.Siddhant Jain, Adv.
Dr.V.B. Sharma, AAG with Mr.Harshal
Tholia, Adv. & Mr.Ankit Rathore, Adv.
Mr.Angad Mirdha, Adv.
Ms.Manjeet Kaur, Adv. with Ms.Anjali
Minocha, Adv., Mr.Ashish Kumar on
behalf of Mr.R.D. Rastogi, ASG.
Mr.B.S. Chhaba, Deputy Solicitor
General of India assisted by
Mr.Mukesh Dudi, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
Order reserved on : 28th September, 2022 &
14th October, 2022
Date of Order : 10th, November, 2022
REPORTABLE
These writ petitions since involve common issues, as such,
with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are
decided by this common order.
(25 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
The petitioners in all the writ petitions after their admission
in the year 2019-20 have completed their Post Graduate Medical
Degree from different medical Colleges in the State of Rajasthan,
they felt aggrieved against the order dated 12.07.2022 and
notification dated 04.08.2022.
The facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12611/2022 are
taken as a lead case and this Court deems it proper to quote the
prayer made in the said writ petition, as follows:-
(i) The impugned order dated 12.07.2022 and impugned
notification dated 04.08.2022, may kindly be declared illegal and
arbitrary and therefore, same may kindly be quashed and set
aside;
(ii) By issuing appropriate writ or direction in the nature
thereof the respondents may kindly be directed:-
(a) To release documents of the petitioners,
(b) Not to invoke the condition No.2 making security deposit
of Rs.25 Lakhs,
In the alternative;
(c) To provide all vacancies of Senior Residents in Govt. and
RAJMES Colleges for allocation afresh for PG candidates in
pursuance to Policy dated 12.07.2022;
(d) To appoint Post Graduates against such posts for which
the qualification is Post Graduation Degree/Diploma;
(e) To adhere to the mandate of Applicable Laws;
The petitioners have pleaded that they were granted
admission in Post Graduate Medical Course in different subjects
under the All India and State Level quota in the Session 2019-
2020 at different Medical Colleges. The petitioners passed out
their Post Graduate Degree Course in May, June & July, 2022.
(26 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
The petitioners have pleaded that at the time of giving
admission to them, they were required to execute a service
bond/undertaking in favour of the State Government to the effect
that after completion of course, they would be bound to serve the
Government for a minimum period of five years, if Government
desired and on such failure, they were liable to deposit a penalty
of Rs.25 Lakhs.
The petitioners have pleaded that initially S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.11531/2022 was filed before this Court, wherein the
petitioners were selected for Senior Residentship in the institutes
of National importance like AIIMS/PGI/JIPMER and their
documents were not released by the State Government and this
Court vide interim order dated 04.08.2022, directed the State
Government to release the documents subject to
undertaking/bond to be furnished by the petitioners to join the
employment, if offered by the State Government. The State
Authorities were directed to release the documents of the
petitioners on furnishing such undertaking.
The petitioners have pleaded that like the petitioner-
Dr.Krishnapriya S. Kumar and Ors. Vs. The State of
Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11531/2022, some of
the other similarly situated candidates applied for the Senior
Residentship programme, however, they were not considered and
as such, details of such 9 candidates have been furnished, who
appeared for the Senior Residentship but were not selected.
The petitioners have pleaded that after interim order was
passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11531/2022, the
State Government on 04.08.2022 issued notification, asking all
(27 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
such candidates, who were admitted in the Academic Year 2019 in
the course of DM/M.Ch/MD/MS and passed out in the Academic
Session 2022, to apply online for the post of Assistant
Professor/Senior Demonstrator/ Senior Resident/Medical
Officer/Junior Specialist/Junior Resident, on urgent temporary
basis/tenure basis.
The petitioners have pleaded in the writ petition that the
order dated 12.07.2022, was made applicable upon those
candidates who were pursuing their Post Graduate Course or
Super Speciality Course i.e. from Academic Session 2022-23,
however, the respondents also made the said order applicable
from the Session 2019-20 by applying it retrospectively, even to
the candidates like petitioners, who had already passed their
Three Year Course, before issuance of order dated 12.07.2022.
The petitioners have pleaded that in order to implement the
order dated 12.07.2022, the Medical Education Department
constituted a State Level Counselling Board of Seven Members to
complete the process of taking two years service from the
candidates, who have qualified Post Graduate and Super Speciality
Course and accordingly, they issued an order dated 22.07.2022.
The petitioners have pleaded that the impugned order/policy
dated 12.07.2022 and notification dated 04.08.2022, have been
passed in violation of the various provisions laid down in the
National Medical Commission Act, 2019, the Teachers Eligibility
Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022, the
Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education
Regulation, the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch)
(28 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
Rules, 1962 and the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules,
1963.
The petitioners have pleaded in their petitions that the policy
of the execution of bond by the candidates after acquiring the
requisite qualification, is also prevalent in other States. The
petitioners have quoted an example of notification of Karnataka
Government, whereby candidates who have completed their Post
Graduate Degree/Diploma Course, are required to serve for one
year compulsory services in the Government Hospitals and their
posting is to be given in the concerned speciality as per merit-
cum-choice. Similarly, an example of Government of Himachal
Pradesh has also been quoted, where candidates are appointed for
a period of two years based upon their specialization.
The respondents-State filed reply to the writ petition and
pleaded that the State Government by issuing an order dated
12.07.2022, has prescribed a process for appointing the students
who have completed their Post Graduation and Super Speciality
Courses from the Government Medical Colleges to serve in the
State of Rajasthan and such students were required to
submit/execute a bond in this regard and the State Government
reduced the period of compulsory service from 5 years to 2 years
and the same has been made applicable to all the students from
the Academic Session 2019-20 onwards. The State has pleaded
that as per their requirement, the candidates would be required to
work as Senior Resident, Associate Professor, Junior Resident,
Senior Demonstrator and Medical Officer and allotment process
would be conducted by a Counselling Board, the Counselling
Board, was to proceed as per merit-cum-choice & preference and
(29 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
merit was to be based on NEET rank and candidates were
requested to fill their choices for the vacancies, allowing the
meritorious students/candidates to opt for posting, as per their
choice.
The respondents have pleaded that in furtherance of order
dated 12.07.2022, they constituted a Counselling Board and vide
notification dated 04.08.2022 informed all the candidates that
online allotment process for appointment on the various posts
have been initiated and all the candidates were instructed to
authenticate their details that was available on the website and
accordingly on 05.08.2022, a list of students from Broad Speciality
and Super Speciality was uploaded on the Official Website and as
such, a revised list was also prepared on 09.08.2022 and the
same was uploaded wherein 88 students were shown in Super
Speciality list and 659 students were shown in Broad Speciality
list.
The respondents have pleaded that the Counselling Board
had uploaded the vacant post matrix of total 1621 posts of
Assistant Professor, Senior Demonstrator, Senior Resident and
Junior Resident collectively and as such, the complete schedule
was provided for filling the online application form.
The respondents have pleaded that the State Government is
proceeding in expeditious manner and taking all the steps to
appoint the candidates in a just and fair manner coupled with their
merit-cum-choice.
The respondents have pleaded that the specific reason for
execution of bond by the candidates, was to repay the State
Government and public at large for the expenses incurred in
(30 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
providing subsidized education and to build the infrastructure
which was required to provide Specialised Educational Course.
The respondents have pleaded that education is provided to
the students of the Government Medical Colleges at minimum fees
and it is not a fundamental right of the petitioners to pursue their
Post Graduate and Super Speciality Course in the Government
Medical Colleges on a subsidized fees. The State has justified
withholding of the original documents to ensure fulfillment of the
conditions of the bond.
The respondents have also pleaded that the allegation of
violation of National Medical Commission Act, 2019, the Post
Graduate Regulations Act, 2000 and the National Medical
Commission PEQ Regulations, 2022 is not at all justified and the
petitioners are bound to serve the State Government as per the
undertaking given by them. The Post Graduate Doctors even if
they are posted as Medical Officers, the same cannot result into
any violation of rights of the petitioners and it is for the State
Government to take the services of the Doctors for providing the
basic health facilities to its citizen.
The respondents-State has pleaded that the petitioners are
not honoring the undertaking which they have unequivocally
submitted and the State Government by issuing the order and
asking the petitioners to serve the State Government, has not
violated any provisions of law.
The petitioners have filed rejoinder to the reply and they
have pleaded that the respondents on the one hand issued the
order dated 12.07.2022 and notification dated 04.08.2022 for
making selections by constituting a Board and on the other hand,
(31 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
Walk-in Interviews were conducted by the various Medical Colleges
ignoring the NEET PG Rank and details of certain Medical Colleges
have been given, where Walk-in Interviews were held and
appointments were made.
The petitioners have pleaded in their rejoinder that various
vacancies were filled up by less meritorious NEET PG rank holders
and as such, the State Government is desirous of taking the
services of the petitioners on lower post like Junior Resident etc.
ignoring their qualification of Post Graduate.
The petitioners have pleaded that the actual intent of the
State Government behind withholding the documents is to force
the petitioners to pay the bond amount while filling up the post of
Senior Resident ignoring the NEET PG criteria and to deprive the
petitioners from Senior Residentship in the premium Government
Medical Colleges.
The respondents filed an additional affidavit dated
13.09.2022, whereby the two orders dated 24.02.2015 and
17.02.2016 have been placed on record, requiring the execution
of bonds by the candidates who joined the Post Graduate and
Super Speciality Courses. The respondents have placed on record
the details with regard to total number of candidates, who were
available for allotment and name of speciality, etc.
The respondents filed another additional affidavit dated
23.09.2022, wherein they informed this Court that the State
Government thought it proper to work out the solution on the
issue of utilisation of services of the candidates, who have passed
Post Graduate commensurating with their qualification and as
such, meeting of different Higher Officials of the Government of
(32 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
Rajasthan had taken place and after approval of the Competent
Authority, the formal order was to be placed before the Court.
Learned Advocate General Mr.M.S. Singhvi filed another
additional affidavit before this Court, wherein an order dated
27.09.2022 has been placed on record. The respondents by
issuing the order dated 27.09.2022, have decided to take the
services of the candidates, who have completed their PG studies
under the service bond to be known as 'Post Graduate Medical
Consultant' and to be employed on contract basis on fixed monthly
remuneration in first year by paying them remuneration of
Rs.85,000/- and in the second year Rs.90,000/- monthly. The
respondents have decided to consider the Post Graduate Medical
Graduates and persons after completing the Super Speciality
Courses for the post of Senior Resident in the Government Medical
Colleges, Assistant Professor in the Government Medical Colleges
for the candidates completing their Senior Residentship in Broad
Speciality, the Junior Specialists in Medical Health Department and
any other post prescribing the qualification of Post Graduate.
The respondents have also decided that such persons will be
appointed on vacant post on the basis of merit-cum-choice, as per
procedure laid down in the order dated 12.07.2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have confined their
challenge to the following actions of the respondents i.e.
(i) the post offered to the petitioners does not
commensurate with their qualification,
(ii) action of State of appointment of persons by way of
Walk-in Interviews without following order dated 12.07.2022 and
notification dated 04.08.2022 is arbitrary and discriminatory and,
(33 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
(iii) the respondents do not have any power to retain the
original documents of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have made following
submissions:-
1. JOB/POST OFFERED TO THE PETITIONERS DOES NOT
COMMENSURATE WITH THEIR QUALIFICATION:-
(a) The offer of job to the petitioners or to ask them to work
on a post which does not commensurate with the
qualification acquired by them, is per se illegal and arbitrary.
(b) The State while offering the job to the petitioners cannot
ask them to work on the lower post and the same results
into sheer misuse of talent and skill acquired by the
petitioners after acquiring the Post Graduate Medical
qualification and such decision suffers from non-application
of mind.
(c) The State being a model employer will not be justified in
asking the petitioners to work on such posts and places,
where infrastructure is not adequate to utilize their skill and
only on account of signing a bond, the petitioners cannot be
forced to work on such posts, which are to be manned by a
person of having lower qualification.
2. GOVERNMENT IS VIOLATING ITS OWN DECISION BY NOT
FOLLOWING ORDER DATED 12.07.2022 AND NOTIFICATION
DATED 04.08.2022:-
(a) Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the Walk-in
Interviews as undertaken by the different Medical colleges after
issuance of order dated 12.07.2022 and notification dated
04.08.2022, are in violation of decision of the State Government to
(34 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
fill the different posts by appointing the Post Graduate Medical
Doctors on the basis of their merit obtained in NEET and as per
their choice to be given while applying. The respondents cannot
violate their own orders and blow hot and cold together.
(b) The selection of candidates having lesser marks and depriving
the petitioners from consideration of their courses as per their
merit and choice, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India.
3. RETENTION OF DOCUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENTS--
ILLEGAL
(a) The respondents do not have any authority to withhold the
documents after completion of Post Graduate qualification of the
petitioners.
(b) The respondents nowhere prescribed any condition of
retaining the documents after completion of course, as per
Instructions Booklet issued by them for the Academic Session
2019, while granting admission to the petitioners in PG Course.
(c) The original documents of the petitioners are valuable
documents and the same cannot be retained by the State
Authorities, as neither the petitioners have executed a bond
authorizing the State Authorities to retain the documents nor
the documents can be kept as a surety for fulfilling the terms
and conditions of the bond to serve the State Government for a
period of two years.
(d) The non fulfillment of any condition of bond executed by the
petitioners may result into any other legal action which can be
taken by the State Government, but as a bargain or as a
(35 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
bullwork, the State Authorities cannot retain the original
documents of the petitioners.
Mr.M.S. Singhvi, learned Advocate General appearing for the
respondents-State has made the following submissions:-
1. The conduct of the petitioners do not entitle them to any
equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
petitioners once have executed a bond and undertook to serve the
State Government for a minimum period of two years, any
subsequent challenge to the execution of bond made by them,
does not entitle them to any relief by this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
2. The bond which has been executed by the petitioners with the
State Authorities, is not a statutory contract but an executive
action and as such, the writ for enforcement of contract is not
maintainable before this court.
3. No mandamus can be issued by this Court as the petitioners do
not have any legal right and for issuance of writ of mandamus
existence of a legal right is sine qua non.
4. The issue relating to execution of bond and retention of
documents by the Authorities is no more res-integra and the relief
sought by the petitioners since has already been declined by the
Apex Court in the case of Association of Medical
Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and Others Vs.
Union of India and Others reported in [(2019)8 SCC 607],
this Court cannot entertain any claim of the petitioner.
5. The power of State Government to retain the documents in the
event of non-performance of contract, is an ancillary power and
the same has rightly been exercised by the State.
(36 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
6. The retention of documents by the State is an implied condition
of contract and as such, the petitioners are bound by the implied
conditions of contract and they may not be allowed to raise any
grievance in this respect.
7. The State has a legitimate expectation from the petitioners to
serve the State Government, as the State Government has
incurred hefty expenses in imparting education to the petitioners
in the Government Medical Colleges at a very low fees and as
such, the petitioners are bound to perform their part either by
serving the State Government or by paying the amount which has
been mentioned in the bond.
8. The State of Rajasthan since has provided infrastructure and
good quality of medical education to the petitioners and negligible
fees has been paid by them and considering the fees which is paid
by the medical students for pursuing their Post Graduate Courses
in the different private Universities, the State is well within its
rights to insist for rendering services or to pay the requisite
amount mentioned in the bond.
9. The State cannot be a mute spectator for not taking any action
against the petitioners, if they have flouted the terms and
conditions of the bond executed by them.
10. The State Government considering the requirement of
providing health services to its own people, if has decided to
utilize the services of Post Graduates Medical Students and
persons with Super Speciality Course, by asking them to work on
different posts, no illegality can be attached with such decision
and it is the policy of the State Government to take services of the
qualified persons as per its requirement.
(37 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
11. The petitioners cannot be permitted to ask or seek a
mandamus to give them appointment as per their educational
qualification only and the insistence of the petitioners to offer
them appointment as per their qualification, cannot be accepted
by the State Government and the State being a service provider,
has to keep in mind the different parameters for utilizing the
services of the Post Graduate Medical Students.
12. The State considering its own resources has taken a policy
decision to utilise the services of different eligible candidates
including the petitioners and no arbitrariness can be found in such
a decision.
Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Vigyan Shah and
Ms.Purvit Mathur has placed reliance on the following
judgments :-
1. Dr. R.D. Saxena Vs. Balram Prasad Sharma reported in
[(2000)7 SCC 264].
2. Dr.Arjun Saili Vs. Union of India reported in [(2021)
SCC Online Del 4212]
3. S. Giridharan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in
[(2022) SCC Online Mad 2394]
4. Monika Vs. PT B.D. Sharma, University of Health
Sciences reported in [(2022) SCC Online P&H 1890]
5. Dipesh Kumar Padhihari Vs. Hi-Tech Medical College &
Hospital & Ors. passed by the Orissa High Court in W.P.
(C) No.20027/2020]
6. S. Saravana Balaji Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (Madurai
Bench of Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P. (MD)
No.18930/2022.
(38 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
7. Association Of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and
Residents & Ors. Vs. Union of India reported in [(2019)
8 SCC 607].
8. State of Tamil Nadu, through its Secretary,
Department of Health and Family Welfare and Another
Vs. P.S. Sairam & Ors. in [2020 SCC Online Mad 2742].
9. Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. Mahadeva Shetty &
Anr. reported in [(2003)7 SCC 197].
10. M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Board Vs. B.S.S.
Parihar & Ors. reported in [(2015)14 SCC 130].
11. State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Brahmutra Metallics
Ltd., Ranchi & Anr. reported in [2020 SCC Online 968].
12. Zahoor Ahmad rather & Ors. Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz
Ahmad & Ors. reported in [(2019) 2 SCC 404].
13. Krishna Rai (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Banaras
Hindu University through its Registrar & Ors. reported
in [2022 SCC Online 750].
14. Dr.Vinod Shankarlal Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in [(2012) 114 (6) Bom LR 4020].
15. Dr. N. Karthikeyan & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu &
Ors. passed by Madras High Court in W.P. No.28526/2021
decided on 19.01.2022.
16. Dr. N. Karthikeyan & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu &
Ors. passed by Division Bench of Madras High Court in W.A.
No.1182/2022 decided on 27.04.2022.
17. S. Kumaresh Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
passed by Madras High Court in W.P. (MD)
No.17338/2022 decided on 04.08.2022.
(39 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
18. K. Swathika & Anr. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
passed by Madras High Court in W.P. (MD)
No.16576/2022 decided on 28.07.2022.
19. Dr. S. Sam Nelson & Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu
& Ors. passed by Madras High Court in W.P. (MD)
No.9821/2022 decided on 19.05.2022.
20. G. Bhargava Phani Krishna & Ors. Vs. The State of
Tamil Nadu & Ors. passed by Madras High Court in W.P.
(MD) No.14112/2022 decided on 05.07.2022.
21. Monil Prakash Chand Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat
reported in [(2014) 3 GLH 481].
22. Nidhi Kishanbhai Vasava Vs. Dean-Gujarat Medical
Education and Research Society reported in [2014 SCC
Online Guj 8724].
23. Shireen M.T. Vs. State of Kerala reported in [2017 SCC
OnLine Ker 2660].
Mr.M.S. Singhvi, learned Advocate General in support of
his submissions placed reliance on the following
judgments :-
1. Director of Settlements A.P. and Others Vs. M.R.
Apparao and Another reported in [(2002)4 SCC 638].
2. State of M.P. and Others Vs. Gopal D. Tirthani And
Others reported in [(2003)7 SCC 83].
3. Suresh Chand Gautam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others reported in [(2016)11 SCC 113.
(40 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
4. Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and
Residents and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
reported in [(2019)8 SCC 607].
5. Union of India and Another Vs. Paras Laminates (P)
Ltd. reported in [(1990)4 SCC 453].
6. Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
reported in [(2008)2 SCC 409].
7. The Union of India Vs. M/s. D.N. Revri and Co. and
Others reported in [(1976)4 SCC 147].
8. DLF Universal Limited and Another VS. Director, Town
and Country Planning Department, Haryana and
Others reported in [(2010)14 SCC 1].
9. Ram Pravesh Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar and
Others reported in [(2006)8 SCC 381].
10. Satya Jain (Dead) Through LRs. and Others Vs. Anis
Ahmed Rushdie (Dead) through LRs. and Others
reported in [(2013)8 SCC 131].
11. Reliance Telecom Limited and Another Vs. Union of
India and Another reported in [(2017)4 SCC 269].
12. Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and Others
Vs. Union of India and Others reported in [(2021)6 SCC
568].
13. Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply
Company of Orissa Limited (SOUTHCO) and Another
Vs. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill reported in [(2012)2 SCC
108].
(41 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
14. R. S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer, Gujarat and Others Vs.
Ajit Mills Limited and Another reported in [(1977)4 SCC
98].
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
This Court is required to consider the first issue raised
by the petitioners relating to not offering them the
post/job according to their qualifications.
This Court finds that the State Government has issued an
order dated 12.07.2022, whereby it consolidated and amended
the previous orders relating to execution of bond of five years by
the Post Graduate Medical students and candidates who pass
Super Speciality course.
The order dated 12.07.2022 is quoted as hereunder :-
jktLFkku ljdkj
funs"kky; fpfdRlk f"k{kk
dzekad i-
7¼86½lh,[email protected],p,[email protected]@Mh,[email protected],[email protected]@8000
t;iqj] fnukad % 12-07-2022
vkns"k
jkT; ds jktdh; fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa
LukrdksÙkj ,oa lqij&Lisf"k;fyVh dkslZ djus okys
vH;kfFkZ;ksa ls orZeku esa dkslZ iw.kZ gksus ds i"pkr 5 o'kZ
jktdh; lsok djus gsrq 25 yk[k :i;s jkf"k dk lsok
cU/ki= Hkjok;k tkrk gSA mijksDr lsok cU/ki= dh
vof/k] jkf"k ,oa ykxw djus dh izfØ;k ds ckjs esa iwoZ esa
le;≤ ij tkjh leLr funsZ"kksa dks lesfdr ,oa
la"kksf/kr djrs gq;s fuEukuqlkj vkns"k tkjh fd;s tkrs gS
%&
1- jkT; ds jktdh; fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa ls
LukrdksÙkj ,oa lqij&Lisf"k;fyVh dkslZ iw.kZ djus ds
mijkar lHkh [email protected]=kvksa ls jkT; esa jktdh; lsok nh
tkuh visf{kr gSA orZeku esa bl gsrq 05 o'kZ dh vof/k
dks ?kVk;k tkdj bls 02 o'kZ fd;k tkrk gSA cU/ki= dh
jkf"k iwokZuqlkj 25 yk[k :i;sa gh jgsaxhA rn~uqlkj
"kS{kf.kd l= 2022&23 esa jktdh; fpfdRlk egkfo|
(42 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
ky;ksa esa LukrdksÙkj ,oa lqij&Lisf"k;fyVh dkslZ esa izos"k
ysus okys [email protected]=kvksa ls 02 o'kZ dh jktdh; lsok
iznku djus gsrq 25 yk[k :i;sa dk lsok cU/ki= izkIr
fd;k tkosaA
2- jktdh; fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa LukrdksÙkj ,oa
lqij&Lisf"k;fyVh dkslZ esa orZeku esa v/;;ujr
[email protected]=kvksa gsrq Hkh mijksDr cU/ki= vof/k dks 02 o'kZ
fd;k tkrk gSA
3- LukrdksÙkj ,oa lqij&Lisf"k;fyVh dkslZ iw.kZ gksus
ij [email protected]=kvksa dks 02 o'kZ ds fy;s jkT; ljdkj ds
v/khu fuEukuqlkj fofHkUu inksa ij jktdh; lsok nsus gsrq
cU/ki= dh "krksZ ds vuqlkj ck/; fd;k tk ldrk gS %&
1- fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa lhfu;j jsftMsUV
2- fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa lgk;d vkpk;Z
¼lhfu;j jsftMsUVf"ki iw.kZ djus ds i"pkr~½
3- fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa twfu;j
[email protected];j MseksLVªsVj
4- fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; foHkkx v/khu fpfdRlk
vf/kdkjh izfro'kZ jktdh; esfMdy dkWystksa ls iklvkmV
LukrdksÙkj ,oa lqij&Lisf"k;fyVh dklsZ [email protected]=kvksa
dh lwpuk funs"kky; fpfdRlk f"k{kk }kjk dkslZ lekIr ls
iw.kZ ;Fkk le; lkekU;r% 02 ekg iwoZ] izkIr dh tk;saxhA
4- funs"kky; fpfdRlk f"k{kk }kjk bu iklvkmV gksus
okys [email protected]=kvksa ls cU/ki= dh "krksZ ds vuqlkj
fu;qfDr fn;s tkus ds fy;s fjDr inksa dh lwpuk lacaf/kr
fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa funs"kky; fpfdRlk ,oa
LokLF; lsok;sa ls dkslZ lekIr gksus ds 02 ekg iwoZ izkIr
dh tk;saxhA
5- jkT; ljdkj ds v/khu fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa ,oa
fpfdRlky;ksa esa mijksDrkuqlkj fjDr inksa ij fu;qfDr gsrq
izkFkfedrk dk fu/kkZj.k Hkh funs"kky; fpfdRlk f"k{kk }
kjk le{k Lrj ls vuqefr izkIr dj fd;k tkosxkA vFkkZr
funs"kky; fpfdRlk f"k{kk ;g fofuf"pr djsxk fd
miyC/k vH;kfFkZ;ksa esa ls bu inksa esa ls dkSu&dkSu ls dks
loksZPp izkFkfedrk ls Hkjk tkuk gSA ;g rkRdfyd
vko";drkvksa ;Fkk&fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa
jk'Vªh; esfMdy vk;ksx ds ekin.Mkuqlkj inksa ij
fu;qfDr] fjDr izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz] lkeqnkf;d LokLF;
dsUnz ij inLFkkiu djus dh vko";drk vkfn ds vk/kkj
ij fd;k tkosaxkA
6- mijksDrkuqlkj fjDr inksa ij inLFkkiu gsrq LukrdksÙkj
,oa lqij&Lisf"k;fyVh dklsZ mRrh.kZ gks jgs [email protected]=kvksa
ls fodYi izkIr fd;s tk;saxsA [email protected]=kvksa dks uhV
ijh{kk esa mudh jsad ds vk/kkj ij eSfjV dk fu/kkZj.k
djrs gq;s eSfjV ds vk/kkj ij fodYi vuqlkj fu;qfDr
iznku dh tkosaxhA
7- bl lEiw.kZ izfØ;k dks lEikfnr djus ds fy;s
fpfdRlk f"k{kk foHkkx }kjk dkmfUlfyax cksMZ dk xBu
fd;k tkosaxkA tks bl izfØ;k dks lEikfnr dj
vH;kfFkZ;ksa ds inLFkkiu gsrq vfHk"ka'kk funs"kky; fpfdRlk
f"k{kk dks izLrqr djsaxkA mijksDr vfHk"ka'kk ds vuqlkj
(43 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
fu;qfDr vkns"k lacaf/kr fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh ;Fkk&iz/kkukpk;Z
,oa fu;a=d] esfMdy dkWyst] funs"kd] tuLokLF; vFkok
vU; l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh fd;s tkosxsA
8- fofHkUu fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa vFkok fpfdRlk ,oa
LokF; esa fjDr inksa dh lwph] la[;k dk fu/kkZj.k djrs
le; jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr vkj{k.k dk Hkh /;ku
j[krs gq;s fofHkUu vkjf{kr oxksZ ds fy;s jkT; ljdkj ds
funsZ"kksa ds vuqlkj lhV vkjf{kr dh tkosaxh ,oa bu
vkjf{kr lhVksa ij lacaf/kr vkjf{kr oxZ ds vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks
fu;qfDr iznku dh tkoasxhA
9- LukrdksÙkj ,oa lqij&Lisf"k;fyVh dklsZ iw.kZ djus ds
mijkar lhfu;j jsftMsUV ds in ij fu;qDr gksus okys
vH;kFkhZ 01 lky dh vof/k iw.kZ gksus ij fpfdRlk
egkfo|ky; esa lgk;d vkpk;Z ds in ij fu;qfDr
gsrq ;ksX; gks tkrs gSA mUgsa vkxkeh o'kZ dh dkmUlfyax esa
Hkkx ysdj lgk;d vkpk;Z ds in ij ;wVhch ij dk;Z
djus dk volj iznku fd;k tkosaxkA
10- dksbZ [email protected]=k mijksDrkuqlkj cU/ki= esa jktdh;
lsok nsus ds fy;s bPNqd ugh gS rks og fu/kkZfjr cU/ki=
jkf"k tek djokdj og cU/ki= ls eqDr gks ldrk gSA
11- ;fn LukrdksÙkj dkslZ djus okys fdlh [email protected]=k
dk vkxkeh o'kZ gsrq lqij&Lisf"k;fyVh dkslZ esa p;u gks
tkrk gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa mls lqij&Lisf"k;fyVh dkslZ
iw.kZ djus ds mijkar 02 o'kZ dh jktdh; lsok iznku
djus dk cU/ki= fy;k tkdj mijksDr lqij&Lisf"k;fyVh
dklsZ djus gsrq vuqer fd;k tk ldsaxkA
12- lacaf/kr vH;kfFkZ;ksa ds ewy nLrkost mijksDr 02 o'kZ
dh jktdh; lsok vof/k iw.kZ djus ds mijkar lacaf/kr
fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; }kjk fjfyt fd;s tk;saxsA bl gsrq
muds }kjk iznku dh xbZ jktdh; lsok ds ckjs esa
izek.k&i= lacaf/kr fu;a=.k vf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh fd;s
tk;saxsA mijksDr izek.k&i= ds vk/kkj ij 02 o'kZ dh
jktdh; lsok dk lR;kiu fd;k tkdj lacaf/kr fpfdRlk
egkfo|ky; }kjk muds ewy nLrkost vH;kFkhZ dks ykSVk
fn;s tkoasxsA ;fn vH;kFkhZ lqij&Lisf"k;fyVh dkslZ esa
p;fur gksrk gS ,oa mls bu f"k{k.k laLFkkuksa esa ewy
nLrkost dh vko'drk gksrh gS rks lacaf/kr laLFkku lh/ksa
gh ewy nLrkost lacaf/kr fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; dks
fHktok;sxkA tgka ij vH;kFkhZ }kjk lqij&Lisf"k;fyVh
dklZsZ gsrq izos"k fy;k tk jgk gSA
13- ;s vkns"k jktdh; fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa ds
lkFk&lkFk Hkfo'; esa jktesl ds v/khu lapkfyr fpfdRlk
egkfo|ky;ksa esa izkjEHk gksus okys LukrdksÙkj ,oa
lqij&Lisf"k;fyVh dkslZ ij Hkh ykxw gksaxsA
14- dkmfUlfyax izfØ;k dks lEikfnr djus ds fy;s "kh?kz
vkWuykbZu flLVe dks funs"kky; fpfdRlk f"k{kk }kjk
fodflr fd;k tkosaxkA
;g vkns"k jkT; ds jktdh; fpfdRlk egkfo|
ky;ksa] jktesl fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa ,oa vkj;w,p,l
fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa "kS{kf.kd l= 2019&20 ,oa
(44 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
mijkar izos"k djus okys LukrdksÙkj ,oa
lqij&Lisf"k;fyVh dkslZ ds Nk=&Nk=kvksa ij ykxw gksxkA
mDr vkns"k l{ke Lrj ls vuqeksfnr gSA
¼oSHko xkyfj;k½
izeq[k 'kklu lfpo
This Court on perusal of order dated 12.07.2022 finds that
the State Government reduced the period of rendering 5 years of
compulsory service and the same was changed/replaced to two
years for not only the students who are to be granted admission in
the Session 2022-23 but the same was also made applicable to
the candidates, who had been granted admission in the
Government Medical Colleges and the Medical Colleges run by
Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Raj-MES) from the Session
2019-2020 onwards. The amount of bond was kept at the same
level of Rs.25 Lakh.
This Court finds that the State Government has decided to
offer the job to the Medical Post Graduates and the candidates
from Super Speciality Course, for a term of two years on the post
of Senior Resident in Medical College, Assistant Professor (after
completion of Senior Residentship) in Medical Colleges, Junior
Resident/Senior Demonstrator in the Government Medical College.
This Court further finds that the Director of Medical
Education has been directed to collect the relevant information of
the candidates from the different Government Medical colleges
well in advance i.e. two months, before completion of their course.
The Director Medical Education was also to ensure about the
priority of all the posts to be filled and clause (6) of the said order
specifically provided that the posting/appointment of the
candidates who have passed out, will be made as per merit on the
(45 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
basis of option offered by them and merit of the candidates will be
prepared on the basis of marks obtained by them in NEET and
their rank.
This Court further finds that Clause (10) of the said order
specifically provided that those candidates who were not
interested in rendering their services in the Government, as per
condition of bond, such candidates were required to deposit the
bond amount and then they were to be set free from terms of the
bond.
This Court finds that clause (12) of the said order makes a
reference of releasing the original documents after completion of
two years of service.
This Court finds that the State Government while asking the
petitioners to execute a service bond/undertaking, had contained
a condition that the candidates were to serve the Government for
a minimum period of five years after completion of the course, if
the Government desired (such condition has been reduced from 5
years to 2 years). The State Government by offering the posts of
Senior Resident/Assistant Professor/Junior Resident/Senior
Demonstrator, has kept in mind the requirement of different Post
Graduate Degrees of candidates and the candidates with Super
Speciality Course and as such, the policy decision of the State
Government is to provide appointments to the petitioners to serve
the State Government on these different posts.
This Court finds that the petitioners who have acquired the
qualification of MBBS and Post Graduation, have not been asked to
work on any post which can be termed as not having any
(46 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
relevance for the job, which the petitioners are now asked to do
by the State Government.
This Court further finds that if the State has to keep in mind
assignment of duties to the different skilled and qualified
candidates and while providing health service to its citizens at
different level i.e. from rural area/urban area, the different
contingencies are kept in mind for providing health service to the
people and in the said endeavour if the State Government decides
that candidates who have acquired Post Graduate qualification or
Super Speciality Course, such candidates should be asked to work
on different available posts, no arbitrariness or fault can be found
with such a decision.
This Court is conscious of the fact that the different Primary
Health Centres, Community Health Centres, Satellites Hospital,
Referral Hospitals, District Level Hospitals, Hospitals at big town
require the skilled Doctors and the candidates who have passed
their MBBS Course and have further acquired qualification of Post
Graduate, need to work and render their service, as the State has
valid expectation from these candidates to pay back to the society
and to work for public at large.
The candidates cannot be permitted to take a U-turn and
raise grievance that the job offered to them does not
commensurate with their qualification.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that if
petitioners are asked to work as Junior Resident or Medical Officer,
the same would amount to working on the post requiring
qualification of only a Graduate i.e. MBBS, is absolutely baseless
and the same needs to be rejected by this Court. The qualification
(47 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
of Post Graduate or Super Speciality Course, will not result into
declaring the petitioners ineligible to discharge the duties of
rendering health services to the citizens of this Country.
This Court on the contrary finds that if candidates with better
skill or higher qualification are available for serving the people of
this Country, the aim of rendering good health service to the
needy persons will be better fulfilled in more effective way.
This Court, is at loss to understand, as how the petitioners
can be permitted to raise a grievance that order dated 12.07.2022
has been made effective retrospectively and the same should not
have been applied to the petitioners as they were admitted in the
Session 2019-2020.
This Court further finds that the earlier, at the time of
executing bond in the session 2019-2020, the petitioners had
agreed to serve the State Government for a term of five years and
now the State Government has reduced the period of bond of
serving the State for a period of two years and the same will in
fact, result into lowering down the stringent condition which was
imposed earlier and in fact, the order dated 12.07.2022 operates
in favour of the petitioners instead of treating the same to be
prejudicial to their interest.
This Court further finds that during pendency of the writ
petition, the State Government has amended the order dated
12.07.2022 by an order dated 27.09.2022. The order dated
27.09.2022 is quoted as hereunder:-
jktLFkku ljdkj
funs'kky; fpfdRlk f'k{kk
Øekad ia- 7¼86½lh,[email protected],p,[email protected]@Mh,[email protected],[email protected]@4081
fnukad 27-09-2022
(48 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
vkns'k
jkT; ds jktdh; fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa ls
LukrdksRrj ,oa lqij&Lisf'k;fyVh dkslZ djus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa ls
Hkjok;s tkus okys jktdh; lsok djus ds cU/k&i= dks ykxw djus
ds Øe esa tkjh funs'kky; fpfdRlk f'k{kk ds vkns'k Øekad ia-
7¼86½lh,[email protected],p,[email protected]@Mh,[email protected],dsM @[email protected]
fnukad 12-07-2022 esa vkaf'kd la'kks/ku djrs gq;s fuEukuqlkj
vfrfjDr vkns'k tkjh fd;s tkrs gS%&
1- LukrdksRrj ,oa lqij Lisf'k;fyVh dkslZ iw.kZ gksus ij
[email protected]=kvksa dks nks o"kZ ds fy;s jkT; [email protected] ds
v/khu izkFkfedrk ls fuEukuqlkj fuEu inksa ij jktdh; lsok nsus
gsrq cU/k&i= dh 'krksZa ds vuqlkj ck/; fd;k tk ldsxk%&
¼1½ fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa lhfu;j jsftMsUV
¼2½ fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa lgk;d vkpk;Z ¼czkWM Lisf'k;fyVh
ds [email protected]=kvksa dks lhfu;j jsftMsUVf'ki iw.kZ djus ds i'pkr½
¼3½ fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; foHkkx ds v/khu dfu"B fo'ks"kK
¼4½ LukrdksRrj ;ksX;rk ds vuq:i vU; dksbZ in
2- lsok cU/k&i= ds v/khu [email protected] Lisf'k;fyVh esa
v/;;u iw.kZ djus okys vH;kfFkZ;ksa dh lsok;s vuqcU/k ds vk/kkj
ij ÞLukrdksRrj fpfdRlk ijke'kZdß (Post Graduate Medical
Consultant) ds vuq:i esa ,d fuf'pr ekfld ikfjJfed ij
vuqcU/k ij yh tk;sxhA
3- LukrdksRrj fpfdRlk ijke'kZd dks izFke o"kZ dh lsok ds fy;s
85 :i;s izfrekg ,oa f}rh; o"kZ dh lsok ds fy;s 90 gtkj
:i;s izfrekg ikfjJfed (Fixed Remuneration) ns; gksxkA
4- fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx }kjk xfBr dkmfUlfyax cksMZ }kjk
dkmfUlfyax ds le; lacaf/kr foHkkx ;Fkk&fpfdRlk f'k{kk
[email protected] ,oa LokLF; foHkkx }kjk nh x;h fjDr inksa dh
lwpuk ds vuqlkj fjDr inksa ds fo:) LukrdksRrj fpfdRlk
ijke'kZd ds inksa ds fy;s bu vH;kfFkZ;ksa ds fodYi fy;s tkdj
lhV vkoafVr dh tk;sxhA
5- LukrdksRrj fpfdRlk ijke'kZd dks mudh ik=rk ds vuq:i
lgk;d vkpk;[email protected];j [email protected]"B fo'ks"kK vFkok
LukrdksRrj fpfdRlk ;ksX;rk ds vuq:i vU; dksbZ in ij lsok
iznku djus gsrq fu;qDr fd;k tk ldsxkA
6- fof'k"B ifjfLFkfr;ksa ;Fkk&oSf'od vkink ¼tSls&dksfoM½] izk--
frd vkink] ck<+] lw[kk vkfn vFkok lhfu;j [email protected];d
vkpk;[email protected]"B fo'ks"kK ds leLr fjDr inksa dks miyC/k djokus
ds ckotwn cU/k i= ds vuq:i miyC/k vH;kFkhZ vf/kd gksus ij
jkT; ljdkj bUgsa fpfdRlk vf/[email protected];j jsftMsUV ds in
ds fo:) Hkh fu;qfDr iznku djus ij fopkj dj ldrh gSA
(49 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
7- dkmfUlfyax izfØ;k ds nkSjku LukrdksRrj fpfdRlk ijke'kZd
dh lhVksa ¼lhfu;j [email protected];d vkpk;[email protected]"B fo'ks"kK½
dk fodYi esfMdy dkWyst [email protected] okj miyC/k djk;k
tk;sxkA ;fn vH;kFkhZ dks eSfjV de PokWbl ds vk/kkj ij
LukrdksRrj fpfdRlk ijke'kZd ¼lhfu;j jsftMsUV vFkok lgk;d
vkpk;Z½ dk [email protected] vkoafVr gksrh gS rks lacaf/kr vH;kFkhZ dh
lsok;s lacaf/kr esfMdy dkWyst ds iz/kkukpk;Z ,oa fu;a=d ds
v/khu gksxh ,oa muds }kjk gh fu;qfDr i= tkjh fd;k tkosxk
rFkk vuqcU/k gLrk{kfjr djok;k tk;sxkA ;fn vH;FkhZ dks eSfjV
de PokWbl ds vk/kj ij LukrdksRrj fpfdRlk ijke'kZd ¼dfu"B
fo'ks"kK½ [email protected] vkoafVr gksrh gS rks lacaf/kr ftys ds eq[;
fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh }kjk fu;qfDr i= tkjh fd;k
tkdj fpfdRlky; vkoafVr fd;k tk;sxk ,oa vuqcU/k gLrk{kfjr
djok;k tk;sxkA
8- ftu inksa ij vH;kFkhZ fu;ksftr fd;s tk;sxs] ml in ij
fu;fer vH;kFkhZ inLFkkfir fd;s tkus ij mDr vH;kFkhZ dks vU;
in ij fu;ksftr fd;k tk ldsxk vFkok lsok ls eqDr fd;k tk
ldsxkA
9- vuqcU/k vof/k esa izfro"kZ vf/kdre 15 fnol dk vkdfLed
vodk'k ns; gksxkA vkdfLed vodk'k izfr iw.kZekl ij vftZr
gksxsA
10- efgyk LukrdksRrj fpfdRlk ijke'kZd dks vuqcU/k vof/k esa
dsoy ,d ckj ds fy;s vf/kdre 180 fnol ds fy;s izlwfr
vodk'k Hkh ns; gksxkA
11- mDr fu;kstu ,d ckj esa ,d o"kZ ds fy;s fd;k tk;sxk]
rRi'pkr eSfjV de PokWbl ds vk/kkj ij iqu% fu;kstu vFkok
fu;kstu vof/k esa o`f) vFkok uohu ik=rk ¼,d o"kZ lhfu;j
jsftMsUV gksus ij½ uohu in ij fu;kstu fd;k tk;sxkA
12- lsok cU/k i= ds v/khu fu;ksftr vH;FkhZ LukrdksRrj
fpfdRlk ijke'kZd dgyk;sxkA ysfdu vH;FkhZ }kjk ftl iz--fr
dk dk;Z fd;k x;k gS mlh ds vuq:i dk;Z vuqHko izek.k&i=
fn;k tk;sxk tSls vH;FkhZ }kjk lhfu;j jsftMsUV ds in ds
vuq:i lsok;s nh xbZ rks dk;kZuqHko izek.k&i= lhfu;j jsftMsUV
dk tkjh fd;k tkosxkA
;g vkns'k foRr foHkkx dh vkbZMh la[;k 132200165
fnukad 22-09-2022 ds vuqlj.k esa tkjh fd;s tkrs gSA
¼oSHko xkyfj;k½
izeq[k 'kklu lfpo
This Court on perusal of order dated 27.09.2022 finds that
now the candidates with Post Graduation Degree and Super
Speciality course, will be asked to work as per the terms and
(50 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
conditions of the bond on the post of Senior Resident/Assistant
Professor in College/Junior Specialists in Medical Health
Department and on any other post as per Post Graduate
qualification.
This Court finds that the apprehension which is raised by the
petitioners and they feel aggrieved against the order dated
27.09.2022 of offering them the post not commensurating with
their qualification, now stands allayed. The post of Junior Resident
or Senior Demonstrator does not find any place, in the new order.
This Court, considering the different clauses, of the order
dated 27.09.2022 finds that now the candidates would be called
'Post Graduate Medical Consultant' and they will be offered fixed
remuneration and their appointments will be made on the basis of
merit cum choice and in certain contingencies like the COVID-19,
natural calamities and etc., the candidates can also be asked to
work on the post of Medical Officer/Junior Resident.
This Court finds that the State Government after taking into
account the relevant factors if has come out with amended order
dated 27.09.2022, no arbitrariness can be attached to such
decision and it is the domain of the State Government to make
use of its work force of the candidates to whom, medical
education has been imparted at subsidized fees.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that
there has been violation of different service regulations and as
such, the State Government by introducing such mechanism may
be held guilty of violating the mandatory provisions of the National
Medical Commission Act, 2019, the Teachers Eligibility
Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022, the
(51 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education
Regulation, the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch)
Rules, 1962 and the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules,
1963, the said contention of counsel for the petitioners is noted to
be rejected.
This Court finds that the State Government has not been
making any regular appointment on substantive post and further
the State Government has been engaging the students/
candidates who have passed their Post Graduate/Super Speciality
Course and the State in no way intends to employee these
candidates on a permanent basis and in fact this is an obligation
which the petitioners are required to discharge for rendering their
services in view of condition which has been agreed by them. The
State Government while asking the petitioners to work, is also
paying them fixed remuneration and as such, in absence of any
regular recruitment being made, it cannot be pleaded before the
Court that the respondents-State is guilty of violating any
provisions of the statutory service Rules.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that
the State Government being model employer cannot be permitted
to force the petitioners to work in the garb of execution of any
bond and the same results into misuse of talent and skill of the
petitioners, this Court finds that the State Government if
considering the relevant factors of providing health service to its
citizens, has decided to ask the candidates to work as consultant,
no arbitrariness or impropriety can be attached to such decision.
The allegation of not having proper infrastructure to utilize the
skill of the petitioners, is also wholly baseless.
(52 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
This Court finds that the petitioners if have been offered job
by the State Government to render their services in Hospitals to
treat the patients who come in different Hospitals at different
level, the State Government with its limited resources, if has
decided to provide health service to the different people, the plea
of lack of infrastructure cannot be accepted by this Court.
This Court finds that acquiring a qualification is indeed
essential for the Doctors to render their service in a proper
manner. This Court further feels that the skill and talent which has
been acquired by a candidate on account of good infrastructure
provided by the State Authorities, he/she needs to pay back to the
society and further the right to health of people should be given
effect by rendering these services by skilled people.
The self interest is to bend before the interest of public at
large and duty of a candidate towards society cannot be lost sight
of, only on account of getting higher qualification.
This Court further finds that acquisition of qualification
makes the person eligible and skilled for higher avenues including
getting the job, however, the same would not confer any
indefeasible right to claim that such person should be given a right
to work on the post or on the assignments, only on account of his
acquiring qualification.
This Court finds that the petitioners have done their MBBS
Course and they have further acquired Post Graduate Medical
course and as such, if they are asked to work in the same field by
rendering their services, no plea can be accepted by this Court
that the talent of the petitioners is being misused or the same
results into a national wastage.
(53 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
The second important issue raised by the petitioners is
with regard to not following the order dated 12.07.2022
and notification dated 04.08.2022 and Walk-in Interviews
conducted by giving appointment to the persons, who were
having lower marks/rank in NEET PG Examination, right of
the petitioners being violated while offering the job on the
post decided by the State in its wisdom.
This Court finds that the order dated 12.07.2022 had
provided the mechanism and the procedure as how appointments
were to be made. This Court finds that the responsibility was
given to the Directorate of Medical Education to collect the
relevant information from different Medical colleges about the
candidates well in advance before two months of completing the
course and further the appointments were to be offered by a State
Level Counselling Board. The State Level Counselling Board was
also constituted by an order of the State Government dated
22.07.2022.
This Court further finds that the criterion for giving
appointment to the candidates was on the basis of ranking of the
candidates in the NEET PG and merit list was to be prepared on
the basis of merit and option, which was to be given by the
candidates.
This Court finds that the order dated 12.07.2022 was
implemented by issuing an order dated 22.07.2022 and further,
the amended order was issued on 27.09.2022 and the criterion for
appointing the candidates was not changed and as such, this
Court does not find any power of the Competent Authority to
(54 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
conduct Walk-in Interviews or appointment to be given by
different Medical Colleges at their own level.
This Court finds substance in the submission of learned
counsel for the petitioners that the different Medical Colleges by
holding selections at their own level and offering appointment to
the less meritorious candidates, have violated their own orders.
This Court finds that once the State Government had
constituted a State Level Selection Board and further, had issued a
notification dated 04.08.2022 to the different candidates to upload
their details on the website and such candidates were required to
fill the online application form, any deviation by the State
Authorities is not permitted and as such, exercise undertaken by
different Colleges on their own without any competence, is
declared illegal and bad in the eye of law.
This Court finds that if the State Government has issued the
orders for asking the different candidates to work as per terms of
the bond, then on the same analogy, the State Government is also
bound to adhere to its own decision by following a proper method
of giving appointment/job to the different candidates including the
petitioners on the basis of criterion which has been fixed and
adopted by them.
This Court finds substance in the submission of learned
counsel for the petitioners that the right to equality has been
violated in the present case, as some of the petitioners who have
higher merit and also subjected themselves before the Authorities
for their selection, such petitioners were not found suitable and
other candidates with lesser marks in NEET rank, have been
selected.
(55 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
This Court finds that the State Government or their
Authorities are not in any way authorized to proceed in the matter
beyond the decision which was taken to fill the different posts as
per the merit to be prepared on a criterion already fixed. Such
kind of exercise by the State or its different Authorities has rightly
given a cause of concern to the meritorious candidates and as
such, the action of the respondents cannot be approved by this
Court.
The third issue raised by the petitioners is with regard
to retention of their original documents and not releasing
the same until they served the State Government or they
pay the requisite amount.
This Court before dealing with the aforesaid issue would like
to take into account the facts which are available on record.
This Court finds that at the time of admission of the
petitioners, the instructions booklet was issued, wherein several
conditions were prescribed about eligibility and other requirements
etc. The instructions booklet had also given the schedule for
holding the counselling and thereafter, requiring the candidates to
join and report at the allotted Colleges. The list of documents
were to be deposited at the time of reporting and surety bond, as
per proforma annexed was one of the documents which was to be
deposited at the time of reporting. The selected candidates were
also required to deposit a surety bond of Rs.5 Lakhs at the time of
reporting and students were to fill a bond amounting to Rs.25
Lakhs as per bond format, however, the Information Booklet had
nowhere provided that the original documents which were to be
(56 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
deposited will not be returned back to the candidates, if they did
not pay the bond amount.
This Court, on further reading of the clauses of the
bond/undertaking given by the petitioners as filed in the present
writ petitions as Annexures, finds that the bond condition had only
inserted a covenant that the student and his/her surety were
jointly and severally bound to pay Government of Rajasthan Rs.25
Lakh and the candidate who failed to serve the State Government
for a minimum period of five year (now reduced to Rs.2 years) on
failing to fulfill such condition, was to pay Rs.25 Lakh as penalty
as per bond/undertaking.
This Court finds that the said bond condition nowhere
provided that if the candidate or his surety failed to serve the
State Government for a period of two years then his original
documents will not be released and the same will be retained by
the State Government.
This Court considering the instructions which were issued at
the relevant time in the Session 2019-2020 and the conditions
contained in the undertaking, nowhere finds that retention of
original documents was any condition which was imposed by the
State Government.
This Court further finds that the original documents of any
candidate/student are very valuable and individual property of
them and retention of these documents on the pretext of not
executing the terms of the bond, cannot be permitted by the
Court.
This Court finds that the original documents cannot be
treated as security for any allegedly due payment of money, thus
(57 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
retention of original documents as a security, is not sustainable in
law.
This Court further finds that the original documents
(certificates) of the students are their individual property and no
institution can retain the same without lawful Authority.
This Court finds that the respondents have acted illegally in
retaining the original documents of the petitioners and as such,
their such action deserves, to be declared bad and illegal.
This Court finds that the Delhi High Court, Madras High
Court, Orissa High Court have taken a similar view and has
deprecated the practice of retaining the documents by the State
Authorities.
The submission of learned Advocate General that conduct of
the petitioners do not make them entitled for grant of equitable
relief, this Court finds that the respondents have retained the
original documents of the petitioners and as such, petitioners'
valuable right has been violated and as such, it cannot be held
that no relief can be granted to the petitioners.
The contention of learned Advocate General that writ of
mandamus cannot be issued as the petitioners do not have any
legal right and existence of a legal right is a sine qua non for
issuing a writ of mandamus, this Court finds that the retention of
original documents of any candidate, would result into violating
his/her right to own and posses original documents, which are
valuable and have importance in order to prove the qualification
possessed by a person and as such, writ of mandamus can be
issued by the Court for enforcement of such right of a candidate.
(58 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
The submission of learned Advocate General that the
respondents have taken an executive action and the bond
executed by petitioners, is not a statutory contract and writ for
enforcement of contract is not maintainable, the said contention of
learned Advocate General is noted to be rejected. The petitioners
in the instant petitions have prayed that the bond/undertaking
given by the petitioners, nowhere stipulated that the State
Authorities will have power to retain the original documents and if
an arbitrary decision is taken by the State, the writ of mandamus
would lie. This Court finds no substance in the submission of
learned Advocate General that these writ petitions have been filed
for the enforcement of contract and as such, not maintainable.
The submission of learned Advocate General that the issue of
retention of documents by the Authorities in valid manner, is no
more res integra in view of judgment passed by the Apex Court in
the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P. S. Sairam & Ors.
(supra), this Court finds that the different petitions were filed
before the Apex Court and orders were challenged of the different
High Courts and the Apex Court upheld the right of the State
Government to ask for execution of bond to serve the State
Government.
The submission of learned Advocate General that specific
prayer was made before the Apex Court in SLP asking the Apex
Court to give direction to the different Authorities to return the
original documents, marksheets/certificates etc and the prayer
made since was not granted, should be deemed to be rejected,
this Court finds that the Apex Court while upholding the power of
the State Government to prescribe a mandatory condition of
(59 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
execution of bond, nowhere dealt with the issue of power of
retention of original documents by the Authorities.
The submission of learned Advocate General that if any issue
is raised before the Apex Court and the relief is declined on the
same issue, it should be treated as a precedent and as such, the
petitioners may not be permitted to raise the issue again before
this Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, this Court finds that the Apex Court while deciding the
controversy, dismissed all the writ petitions and appeals filed
before it and all the Doctors who had executed the compulsory
bonds were to be bound by the conditions contained therein (in
bonds).
This Court, as discussed in earlier paragraphs, has found that
no petitioner had executed a bond which contained the condition
that in the eventuality of violating any condition of the bond, the
original documents (certificates) of the petitioners would be
retained and they will be released only after payment of Rs.25
Lakh and as such, this Court is not inclined to accept the
submission of learned Advocate General that the relief which is
sought by the petitioners, cannot be granted by this Court.
The submission of learned Advocate General that power to
retain the documents is an ancillary power and the same is also
implied condition of a contract and as such, the petitioners are
bound by the same, the said submission of learned Advocate
General is liable to be rejected. The retention of documents cannot
be treated as an ancillary power and same is also not implied
condition of contract.
(60 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
The State Government if had asked the
candidates/petitioners to execute a bond and surety was also
undertaken of making payment of stipulated amount, if the
persons did not serve the State for two years, the retention of
documents from no stretch of imagination, can be an ancillary
power or implied condition of contract.
The submission of learned Advocate General that the State
has incurred heavy expenditure in providing infrastructure and
good quality of medical education and further, very low fee has
been charged and as such, the State Government has legitimate
expectation from the petitioners to serve and insistence of
rendering service or to pay the requisite amount may not be
treated suffering from any illegality, this Court has already upheld
the right of State to ask the candidates to render their services
and as such, the right of the State to ask for execution of bond,
has already been upheld by the Apex Court in the case of
Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and
Residents and Others (supra).
The submission of learned Advocate General that the High
Court of Madras has refused to release the documents of the
candidates on the basis of judgment passed by the Apex Court in
the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P. S. Sairam & Ors.
(supra), in humble opinion of this Court, the Madras High Court
has taken a view that the issue of retention of documents stands
concluded in view of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the
case of Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and
Residents and Others (supra) and the same is binding under
Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
(61 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
However, this Court further finds that the Madras High Court
subsequently in judgment dated 19.01.2022 passed in the case of
Dr. N. Karthikeyan (supra) has allowed the return of original
documents and the judgment of Single Bench has been upheld by
judgment passed by Division Bench in the case of Dr. N.
Karthikeyan (supra), dated 27.04.2022.
The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the
judgment in the case of Laxminarain Vs. State and Others
reported in [1982 WLN (UC) 305] relating to conduct of the
party entitling relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
this Court finds that the facts of the said case related to execution
of voluntary agreement by the petitioner to repay the loan to the
Cooperative Bank and later on, he resiled from avoiding the same
liability on legal technicality then this Court dismissed the writ
petition as conduct of the petitioner was found to be dishonest,
however, the said case has no application in the present facts of
the case and in any manner, the conduct of the petitioners cannot
be termed as dishonest.
The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of R.S. Joshi,
Sales Tax Officer, Gujarat and Ors. (supra) this Court finds
that the same is in respect of the word 'forfeiture' and it should
mean as a penalty for breach of a prohibitory direction. The Apex
Court in the said case had considered the entries in Legislative list
and held that all the ancillary and incidental powers are meant for
enforcing fiscal legislation as punitive measure. The said judgment
is of no relevance in the present controversy.
(62 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu
(supra), this Court finds that the same is in respect of power of
Authority to do something which includes incidental or implied
powers to ensure the proper doing of a particular thing. The said
case of the Apex Court was in respect of power and remedies
available against improper investigation as per Sections 154(3),
156(3), 200 and 482 Cr.PC. The said case has no application at all
in the present case and as such, is of no assistance to learned
Advocate General.
The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India
and Another Vs. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd. (supra) this Court
finds that the same is in respect of interpretation of Section 129-
C(5) and (6) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Apex Court has
held that the powers of Tribunal are limited and the power
expressly or impliedly granted has to be within the bounds of
jurisdiction. The said judgment is of no assistance to learned
Advocate General to the learned Advocate General.
The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of The Union of
India Vs. M/s. D.N. Revri and Co. and Others (supra) this
Court finds that the same is in respect of interpretation of
arbitration clause and a contract between the parties is to be
interpreted to give efficacy to the contract rather than to
invalidate it. The said judgment is of no relevance and of no
assistance to the learned Advocate General.
(63 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of DLF Universal
Limited and Another (supra), this Court finds that the same is
in respect of interpretation of Haryana Development and
Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and Haryana Development
and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976, vis-a-vis, the powers
under the Specific Relief Act and under the Contract Act. This
Court finds that the Apex Court has considered the aspect of
determining the ultimate purpose of a contract primarily by the
joint intent of the parties at the time of contract so formed and
the joint intent of parties is to be discovered from the entirety of
the contract and the circumstances surrounding its formation. The
said judgment is of no relevance in the present facts of the case.
The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on a
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Director of
Settlements, A.P. and Others (supra), is in respect of power of
the High Court for issuance of writ of mandamus. The Apex Court
in the said case has held restated the principle that power of High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not only for
enforcement of fundamental rights but for 'any other purpose' as
well and the said power is discretionary and no limits can be
placed upon their discretion but the discretion is to be exercised
on the recognized lines and subject to certain self-imposed
limitations. The Apex Court in the said case has nowhere
restrained the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction if an
arbitrary act is done by the State or its Authorities and the same
results into violation of valuable right of citizen. The said judgment
is of no assistance to the learned Advocate General.
(64 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on a
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Chand
Gautam (supra) is in respect of considering the reservation in
the matters of promotion and consequential seniority in public
employment for SCs and STs. The Apex Court has also considered
the scope of issuance of writ of mandamus, the said Authority
again does not restrain the High Court from exercising the power
of issuing a writ of mandamus against an arbitrary action of the
State Authorities and as such, this judgment is of no help to
learned Advocate General.
The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on a
judgment passed in the case of State of M.P. and Others
(supra), this Court finds that the same is in respect of allocation
of 20% seats for In-service candidates in PG Medical Course and
the Apex Court has only observed that In-service candidates after
attaining higher academic achievements, will be available to be
posted for the rural areas and the State Government can ensure
the service by obtaining a bond from the candidates. The said
judgment only deals with an issue of allotment of 20% seats for
In-service candidates and has no bearing in the present matter.
The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu
Medical Officers Association and Others (supra), this Court
finds that the same is in fact again reiteration by the Apex Court
in respect of legislative competence of the States to make
reservation for In-service Doctors in the State quota and further
service by such candidates in the Rural, Tribal and Hilly areas is by
way of executing the bonds. The said judgment of the Apex Court
(65 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
does not deal with the issue of retaining the original documents by
the Authorities of the candidates and as such, no assistance can
be taken from it.
The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Executive
Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa
Limited (SOUTHCO) and Another (supra), this Court finds that
the same is in respect of interpretation of Section 126 explanation
(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and further the words
'Unauthorised use of electricity', 'unauthorised use' has been
interpreted by the Apex Court. The Apex Court has also observed
that common sense view relating to the implication and impact of
provisions is the relevant consideration for interpreting a term of
document so as to achieve temporal proximity of the end result
and another similar rule is the rule of practical interpretation. The
said judgment is of no relevance and no assistance can be taken
by learned counsel for the State.
The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Satya Jain
(Dead) through LRs. And Other (supra), this Court finds that
the same is in respect of interpretation of provisions of the
Specific Relief Act and the principle of business efficacy is invoked
to read a term of agreement or contract to achieve the result or
the consequence intended by the parties acting as prudent
businessmen. The said judgment is of no relevance in the present
facts of the case.
The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Reliance
(66 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
Telecom Limited and Another (supra), this Court finds that
the same is in respect of interpretation of principle of legitimate
expectation and the Apex Court while considering the provisions of
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 has held that
principle of legitimate expectation can never override public
interest and when there is larger public interest, the question of
legitimate expectation does not arise. The said case is of no
relevance and of no assistance to learned Advocate General.
The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Pravesh
Singh and Others (supra), this Court finds that the same is in
respect of considering the principle of legitimate expectation and it
has been held not to be a legal right, it is an expectation of
benefit, relief or remedy that may ordinarily flow from a promised
or established practice. The Apex Court further found that the
legitimate expectation is not a right and is not enforceable and it
is a concept fashioned by the Courts for judicial review of
administrative action. The said judgment is of no assistance to
learned Advocate General.
The reliance placed by learned Advocate General on the
judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Dr.
Mohit Jain and Others Vs. Armed Forces Medical College
and Others in [2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1667] deals with a
situation where a candidate who was admitted in the year 2014-
15 and after completing the course, he had filed the writ petition,
the said judgment does not lay down any law that a candidate
against whose illegal action has been taken by the respondents by
retaining the documents, then he cannot file the writ petition.
(67 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
The reliance placed by learned Advocate General in the case
of Dr.Vishnu Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.3000/2011 and other writ petitions, is in
respect of depositing the amount as per surety bond. This Court in
the aforesaid case found that if petitioner had furnished the bond,
his admission in the PG Course, then he should have raised the
grievance immediately after submitting the bond and further if the
Course was left in between by the candidate, the condition of
furnishing the surety bond, was found to be valid by the Court.
The said case is of no assistance to learned Advocate General.
The upshot of above discussion is as follows:-
1. The impugned order dated 12.07.2022 and notification
dated 04.08.2022 do not suffer from any illegality.
2. The prayer of the petitioners to offer them job
commensurating with their qualification, is not
accepted.
3. The action of the State Government of violating its own
order dated 12.07.2022 and subsequent notification
dated 04.08.2022, is not approved by this Court.
4. The respondents-State would proceed to appoint the
petitioners and other eligible candidates, as per the
terms and conditions of preparing the merit as per
order dated 12.07.2022 on the basis of rank/merit-
option of the candidates in NEET PG Examination.
5. The State Authorities will carry out the exercise of making
appointment as per the Counselling Board constituted
by them, by order dated 22.07.2022, as per the criteria
(68 of 68) [CW-12611/2022]
laid down in order dated 12.07.2022 and reiterated in
the order dated 27.09.2022.
6. The action of the respondents-State of retention of
original documents of the petitioners is declared bad
and the same is quashed. The respondents are directed
to return the original documents of the petitioners
within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt
of this order.
7. Any appointment made in violation of the criterion laid
down in the order dated 22.07.2022 is declared bad
and the State Government is required to undertake
denovo exercise of appointment, as per order dated
12.07.2022, notification dated 04.08.2022 and
subsequent order dated 27.09.2022.
8. The respondents-State would be free to proceed in
accordance with law for violation of any condition of
bond or undertaking for effecting recovery of money
against the petitioners.
The present writ petitions are accordingly disposed of in the
light of above discussions. No order as to costs.
A copy of this order be separately placed in each connected
petition.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J
Solanki DS/Himanshu Soni/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
