Suman vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5788 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:25327]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14263/2019

1. Suman W/o Ravindra Kaswa D/o Rajpal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Rajpuriya, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

2. Sumitra Dhayal W/o Satyaver, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Bhairu Channi, Post Channi Bari, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

3. Annu Bagariya W/o Surjeet Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Rashidpura, District Sikar.

4. Rajbala W/o Mukesh Kumar D/o Mange Ram Jangir, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Aguna Mohalla, Dhanoti Chhoti, District Churu.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

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

3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Udaipur.

4. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Sikar.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Ranka for Ms. Vandana Bhansali

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

10/08/2023

1. The petitioners have challenged rejection of their candidature

for the General Nursing Training Course Session - 2018-2019.

2. On 13.08.2018, considering the submission of the petitioners

that their case is covered by the judgment rendered in the case of

Sunila Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.11443/2016), decided on 25.05.2017, a co-

ordinate Bench of this Court passed following interim order:-

[2023:RJ-JD:25327] (2 of 2) [CW-14263/2019]

"In the meanwhile, respondent No.2 is directed to provisionally accept the application form of petitioner, if she is otherwise eligible, for pursuing GNM Course 2018-19 under the category of department employees."

3. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent-

State and a distinction has been sought to be drawn between the

advertisement in the case of Sunila Kumari (supra) and the terms

of the advertisement in the present case.

4. Having regard to the facts that the petitioners have simply

claimed their right of training as in-service candidate and that

they have already completed their training, this Court does not

wish to go into nicety of the arguments which has been advanced

by the State.

5. While keeping the argument open, the interim order dated

13.08.2018 passed by this Court is made absolute.

6. The petitioners shall be entitled to all the benefits of the

course, as in-service candidate.

7. The stay application stands disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 248-AbhishekS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)