Santosh Kumari vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4489 Raj

[2023/RJJD/014694]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5612/2023

1. Santosh Kumari D/o Gopi Ram W/o Inderjeet, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Utarada Baas, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

2. Priyanka D/o Vinod Kumar W/o Sandeep Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Bharwana, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. Additional Director (Administration), Medical And Health Services, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Hanumangarh.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manjeet Godara Mr. Rajesh Kumar Godara

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

11/05/2023

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the

respondents are bound to abide by judgment passed by Jaipur

Bench of this Hon'ble court in Priyanka Saini & Ors. V/s State

of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1766/2017),

decided on 01.05.2017, the operative portion of this judgment,

reads as under:-

"following the view formulated by the coordinate Bench in the case

of Rajkumar & Ors. (supra), the present writ petitions are

disposed of by issuing following directions:-

[2023/RJJD/014694] (2 of 3) [CW-5612/2023]

"(i) That the respondents shall issue a public notice in "Rajasthan Patrika' and 'Dainik Bhaskar' having largest circulation in the State of Rajasthan, within ten days from the receipt of certified copy of the order.

(ii) That the respondents in the public notice shall also disclose number of vacancies available in each district.

(iii) That the respondents in the public notice to be issued in pursuance of directions issued above, shall seek option of candidates district- wise. Needless to say, a meritorious candidate shall first give option for his/ her home district and then shall give his/ her preference for remaining districts serial-wise.

(iv) That the respondents, after meritorious candidates are allowed to exercise option for his/her home district and posts are filled on that basis, shall allocate remaining posts in other districts to successful candidates on the basis of merit.

(v) It is clarified that no candidate lower in merit will be allowed to jump a candidate who is meritorious. So far employment is concerned, all candidates in merit list shall be allocated a district.

(vi) That respondents shall device a formula to act in consonance with the directions issued by this court above so that no meritorious person is left out of the employment".

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners may be permitted to file a representation before the

respondents in the light of judgment rendered by this court in the

case of Priyanka Saini (supra) for redressal of the grievance of the

petitioner.

3. In view of above, the present writ petition is disposed of in

terms that in the event of filing a representation by the

petitioners, the same shall be considered by the respondents at

the earliest preferably within a period of eight weeks from the

date of receipt of certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance

with law.

4. The order has been passed based on the submissions made

in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the

veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,

[2023/RJJD/014694] (3 of 3) [CW-5612/2023]

the averments made therein are found to be correct, the

petitioners would be entitled to the relief.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 55-/Vivek/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)