Ram Mahesh Meena S/O Shri Jagmohan ... vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5921 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:28813]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 89/2021

                                            In

                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14521/2018

Ram Mahesh Meena S/o Shri Jagmohan Meena, Aged About 31
Years, Resident Of Vill. Post- Mogepura, Teh. Mandrayal, Distt.
Karauli (Raj.)-322241
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Medical
         And Health Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
2.       Shri Siddharth Mahajan, Principal Secretary Medical And
         Health Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
3.       Shri Mukul Sharma, Director, Medical And Health Service,
         Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
4.       Shri Dr. K.k. Sharma, Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical And
         Health      Services,      Swasthya          Bhawan,        Tilak   Marg,       C-
         Scheme, Jaipur.
5.       Dr. Gopal Prasad Goyal, Chief Medical And Health Officer,
         Distt. Dholpur (Raj.)
                                                   ----Contemnors/Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad For Respondent(s) : Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG with Mr. Aman Bhargava

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Judgment / Order

12/10/2023

This contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful

disobedience of the common order dated 06.03.2020 passed by

this Court deciding a batch of writ petitions whereby, the

respondents were directed to consider candidature of the

[2023:RJ-JP:28813] (2 of 3) [CCP-89/2021]

petitioners by granting them bonus marks after recording

satisfaction that they were performing similar work. It was further

ordered that if the respondents deny any of the candidate bonus

marks on the ground that the post on which they have worked

could not be treated as of similar work to that of ANM/GNM,

speaking order would be passed with its communication to the

concerned petitioner who would be free to challenge the same if

need so arises.

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted a copy of

the order dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Director (Non-

Gazetted), Medical And Health Services Rajasthan, Jaipur for

perusal of this Court. The copy of the order is taken on record.

Referring to the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the

respondents submits that after considering the case of the

petitioner for grant of bonus marks in terms of direction issued by

this Court vide order dated 06.03.2020, he was not found eligible

for the same as he did not discharge the similar work to that of

ANM/GNM. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the contempt

petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the respondents have erroneously rejected his candidature.

He submits that the persons similarly situated to the petitioner

have been extended benefit of bonus marks. He, therefore, prays

that the respondents may be directed to purge the contempt and

they may also be punished suitably.

Heard. Considered.

Vide order dated 06.03.2020, contempt whereof is alleged,

this Court issued following directions:

[2023:RJ-JP:28813] (3 of 3) [CCP-89/2021]

"Thus, even if, a candidate has been working on PPP Mode, he/she would be entitled for consideration for grant of bonus marks. The State Authority is therefore directed to consider candidature of the practitioners be granting them bonus marks after satisfying that they were performing similar work. If the respondents denied any of the candidate bonus marks on the ground that the post on which they were worked cannot be treated as of similar work to that of ANM/GNM, speaking order shall be passed and communicated to the concerned petitioner who would be free to challenge the same if need so arises."

Indisputably, the respondents have rejected the candidature

of the petitioner holding him disentitled for grant of bonus marks

on the premise that the work discharged by him was different

from the work as that of ANM/GNM working in the PPP Mode.

Validity of the order dated 09.10.2023 is not open for examination

by this Court in its contempt jurisdiction in absence of any

direction in the order dated 06.03.2020 to decide the

representation in a particular fashion. Further, in the order itself, a

liberty was extended to the petitioner to challenge the order, if

passed adversely.

In view thereof, this Court is satisfied that there has been

substantial compliance of the order dated 06.03.2020.

Resultantly, this contempt petition is dismissed.

Notices are discharged.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Sudha/326

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)