Prahlad Kalwan vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7845 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:32556]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4595/2020

1. Dr. Praveen Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Shravan Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 9, Shekhawat Colony, Bagar, District Jhunjhunu At Present Working At Dungarpur Medical College, Dungarpur.

2. Dr. Navneet Singh S/o Shri Vikram Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 202 Kb House, Pratap Nagar, 100 Feet Road, Dungarpur.

3. Dr. Ritul Rathore S/o Shri Prempal Singh Rathore, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 202, Kb House, Pratap Nagar, 100 Feet Road, Dungarpur.

4. Dr. Brijesh Kumar Baranda S/o Shri Ratanlal Baranda, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 2Nd Flor, Paswa Medical Store, Near Pratap Chowk, Hospital, Dungarpur.

5. Dr. Pappu Lal Salvi S/o Shri Mohan Lal Salvi, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Gautam Lal Kharadi, Radhika Sadan New Colony, Dungarpur.

6. Dr. Isaan Kalavatiya S/o Shri Hemraj Kalavatiya, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 197, Pratap Nagar, Dungarpur.

7. Dr. Mohammed Khusnood S/o Shri Nooruddin Khusnood, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Quarter No .5, Government Medical College Campus, Thane, Dungarpur.

8. Dr. Ajay M. Nalamwar S/o Late M.b. Nalamwar, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Quarter No. 5, Government Medical College Campus, Thane, Dungarpur.

9. Dr. Satendra Verma S/o Shri Babu Ram Verma, Aged About 35 Years, R/o C/o Shri Vibhash Gandhi, 41, Water Works Road, Behind Nagar Parishad, Dungarpur.

10. Dr. Kavita Arya D/o Shri Shriram Arya, Aged About 26 Years, R/o V/o Shri Hitesh Pandaya, 7/45, Shivaji Nagar, Dungarpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

[2023:RJ-JD:32556] (2 of 22) [CW-4595/2020]

2. Directorate Of Medical Education, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.

3. The Additional Director (Administration) And Joint Secretary, Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education Society, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.

4. Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Rajmes), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.

5. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Rajmes), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.

6. The Principal And Controller, Medical College And Associated Group Of Hospital, Dungarpur.

----Respondents Connected With (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13541/2019

1. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Amrit Lal Meena, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Room No. 38, Resident Doctor Hostel, Dungarpur.

2. Dr. Sushma Singh W/o Shri Salabh Sharma,, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 25/1081 Jivan Deep House, Isai Mohalla, Ajmer At Present Dungarpur.

3. Dr. Virendra Singh Rathore S/o Shri Hanuman Singh Rathore, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 236-37 Tirupati Vihar C, Manyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur At Present Dungarpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Directorate Of Medical Education, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur

3. The Additional Director (Administration) And Joint Secretary, Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education Society, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.

4. Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Rajmes), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.

5. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Rajmes), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.

[2023:RJ-JD:32556] (3 of 22) [CW-4595/2020]

6. The Principal And Controller, Medical College And Associated Group Of Hospitals, Dungarpur.

----Respondents (3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12518/2019

1. Jeetendra Yogi S/o Shri Rati Ram Yogi, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 8/1 Housing Board Vistar, Dungarpur.

2. Dr. Arvind Kumar S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Goyal,, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Chetan Das, 8/46, Housing Board, Dungarpur.

3. Dr. Jignesh Kumar S/o Shri Mishri Mal,, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Kachrulal Jain, Sf 71, Shivaji Nagar, Housing Board, Dungarpur.

4. Dr. Rajesh Roat S/o Shri Shiv Ram Roat,, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Plot No. 17, Pratap Nagar, Dungarpur.

5. Dr. Mamta Damor S/o Shri Kal Singh Damor,, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Plot No. 17, Pratap Nagar, Dungarpur.

6. Dr. Prabhash Bhavsar S/o Shri Harirar Prasad,, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Karulal Jain, Gokuldham Society, Near Vardaan Kidzee School, Dungarpur.

7. Dr. Arihant Tater S/o Shri Madan Tater,, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Near Garh, Ratangarh, District Churu At Present Dungarpur.

8. Dr. Priya Vijay Kumar Gameti D/o Shri Vijay Kumar Gameti,, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 299 C/o Kesari Mal Jain, Opposite 132 Kv Power House, Dungarpur.

9. Dr. Mala Jain D/o Shri Virendra Jain,, Aged About 31 Years, R/o House Number 360, Near Pratap Circle Hospital Road, Dungarpur.

10. Dr. Ankit Gupta S/o Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta,, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 3/21 New Colony Towards Police Line, Dungarpur.

11. Dr. Charita Meena D/o Shri Surendra Meena,, Aged About 38 Years, R/o H. No. 1/j/17, Bramsthali Colony, Rajasthan Board Extension Scheme, Dungarpur

12. Dr. Vijay Kumar Meena S/o Shri Nand Lal Meena,, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Vardhanman Medical, New Hospital Road, Dungarpur.

13. Dr. Gunvanti Meena W/o Shri Hari Narain Meena,, Aged

[2023:RJ-JD:32556] (4 of 22) [CW-4595/2020]

About 34 Years, R/o Vardhanman Medical, New Hospital Road, Dungarpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Directorate, Medical Education, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur

3. The Additional Director (Administration) And Joint Secretary, Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education Society, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur

4. Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Rajmes), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur

5. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Rajmes), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.

6. The Principal And Controller, Medical College And Associated Group Of Hospitals, Dungarpur.

----Respondents (4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12525/2019

1. Prahlad Kalwan S/o Shri Sita Ram Kalwan, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Aj-23/24, Mahaveer Nagar Barmer.

2. Dr. Mahendra Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Nawla Ram,, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Rajeev Nagar, Sindhari Choraya, Barmer.

3. Dr. Ram Kumar Singhal S/o Shri Kedar Nath Singhal,, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Beriyon Ka Bas, Near Bachpan School, Raj Colony, Barmer.

4. Dr. Anil Kumar Sethiya S/o Shri Prakash Chandra Sethiya,, Aged About 41 Years, R/o New Ganpati Market, Barmer.

5. Dr. Pradeep Tanwar S/o Shri Shiv Ratan,, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 397, Agarsen Nagar, Sri Ganganagar.

6. Dr. Girish Chandra Baniya S/o Shri Panna Ram Baniya,, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Near Income Tax Colony, Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer.

7. Dr. Garima Gupta D/o Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta,, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 2/ba/15, Near Ganesh Choraya, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur.

[2023:RJ-JD:32556] (5 of 22) [CW-4595/2020]

8. Dr. Anshul Sharma S/o Shri Prakash Sharma,, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Behind Hutch Tower, Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer.

9. Dr. Madan Kumar Solanki S/o Shri Pyare Lal Solanki,, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ad/12 Jeengar Mohalla, Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer.

10. Dr. Neha Garg D/o Shri H.s. Garg,, Aged About 32 Years, S/o Vijay Vitta, Behind New Jewan Hospital, Ray Colony, Balrmer.

11. Dr. Pooja Arya W/o Dr. Vikash,, Aged About 35 Years, R/o A/9, K.k. Colony, Bikaner At Present Barmer.

12. Dr. Ganeshee Lal Sharma S/o Shri Ram Dayal Sharma,, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ward No. 14, Roopa Devi School, Dungarpur, Bikaner At Present Barmer.

13. Dr. Manish Choudhary S/o Shri Ghisa Ram Choudhary,, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Kawaro Bhanwaro Ka Bas, Badhar Chowk, Bilara, Jodhpur At Present Barmer.

14. Dr. Vikram Singh S/o Shri Bhagwat Singh,, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Bharatpur At Present Barmer Medical College, Barmer

15. Dr. Dimple Shakeet W/o Dr. Manish Chinia,, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Behind Saraf Well, Near Airfail Tower Ke Pass, Ratangarh, Churu

16. Dr. Alka Luniya D/o Dr. Bhikam Chand Luniya, And W/o Dr. Pawan Dhariwal, Aged About 32 Years, Teliyon Ka Nichla Bas, Mal Godawan Road, Barmer.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Directorate, Medical Education, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur

3. The Additional Director (Administration) And Joint Secretary, Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education Society, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur

4. Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Rajmes), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur

5. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education Society

[2023:RJ-JD:32556] (6 of 22) [CW-4595/2020]

(Rajmes), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.

6. The Principal And Controller, Medical College And Associated Group Of Hospitals, Barmer.

----Respondents (5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12538/2019

1. Praveen Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Shravan Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 9, Shekhawat Colony, Bagar, District Jhunjhunu At Present Working At Dungarpur Medical College, Dungarpur.

2. Dr. Navneet Singh S/o Shri Vikam Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 202 Kb House, Pratap Nagar, 100 Feet Road Dungarpur.

3. Dr. Tara Chand S/o Shri Narottam Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o House No. 276, Pratap Nagar, Dungarpur.

4. Dr. Ritul Rathore S/o Shri Prempal Singh Rathore,, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 202, Kb House, Pratap Nagar, 100 Feet Road, Dungarpur.

5. Dr. Brijesh Kumar Baranda S/o Shri Ratanlal Baranda, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 2Nd Floor, Parswa Medical Store, Near Pratap Chowk, Hospital Road, Dungarpur.

6. Dr. Pappu Lal Salvi S/o Shri Mohan Lal Salvi, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Gautam Lal Kharadi, Radhika Sadan New Colony, Dungarpur.

7. Dr. Vasantpuri Gosai S/o Shri Gosai Cheharpuri Sukhdepuri, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 1-J-30, Motikunj Keshavnagar Housing Colony, Answara At Present Dungarpur.

8. Dr. Ishaan Kalvatia S/o Shri Hemraj Kalavatia, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Sohan Lalji Jain Gandhi Aasharam Near Pangtanjali Hospital, Udaipur Road, Dungarpur.

9. Dr. Mohammed Khushnood S/o Late M.b. Nalamawar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o A 33 Shastri Nagar, Dungarpur.

10. Dr. Ajay M. Nalamwar S/o Late M.b. Nalamwar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Quarter No. 5, Government Faculty Quarter, Thana Dungarpur.

11. Dr. Satendra Verma S/o Shri Babu Ram Verma, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Quarter Number 4, Non Teaching Building, Medical College, Dungarpur.

[2023:RJ-JD:32556] (7 of 22) [CW-4595/2020]

12. Dr. Radheyshyam Jat S/o Shri Shaitan Singh Chouwdhary, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Jhalara Kui Dhani Jatipura Chomu At Present Dungarpur.

13. Dr. Kavita Arya D/o Shri Shriram Arya,, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Shivaji Nagar, Dungarpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Directorate Of Medical Education, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur

3. The Additional Director (Administration) And Joint Secretary, Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education Society, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur

4. Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Rajmes), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur

5. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Rajmes), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.

6. The Principal And Controller, Medical College And Associated Group Of Hospitals, Dungarpur.

----Respondents (6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12544/2019

1. Sohel Solanki S/o Shri Abdul Rasheed Solanki, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Chaniya Kirana Store, Near Nehru Yuva Kendra, Barmer.

2. Dr. Mukesh Fulwaria S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Fulwaria, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Barmer Medical College, Barmer.

3. Dr. Aradhana Devi W/o Shri Dr. Anil Shishodiya, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Navjeewan Ke Pass, Laxmipura, Barmer.

4. Dr. Vandana Sharma W/o Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 302, Aakansha Apartment, Sector 4, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur At Present Barmer Medical College, Barmer.

5. Dr. Ghanshyam Gehlot S/o Shri Bhika Ram Gehlot, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Under Chaibili Ghati Near Neem Ka Gatta, Bikaner At Present Barmer.

[2023:RJ-JD:32556] (8 of 22) [CW-4595/2020]

6. Dr. Motilal Khatri D/o Shri R.l. Khatri, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Khatri Street, Khatriyon Ka Michla Bas, Barmer.

7. Dr. Sweta Amarneel D/o Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o B/4/8 Rajwest Colony, Shivkar Road, Barmer.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Directorate, Medical Education, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur

3. The Additional Director (Administration) And Joint Secretary, Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education Society, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur

4. Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Rajmes), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur

5. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Rajmes), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.

6. The Principal And Controller, Medical College And Associated Group Of Hospitals, Barmer.

----Respondents (7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13528/2019

1. Dr. Sadhna Joshi D/o Shri Narotam Joshi, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 23/249, Garh Palace Road, Post Office Ke Piche, Tipta, Kothooni Pole, Kota, At Present Dungarpur.

2. Dr. Kamlesh Damor S/o Shri Taju Damor, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Gad, Quarter No. 2, New Hospital Circle, Dungarpur.

3. Dr. Bhagyashree Garasia D/o Shri Arjun Lal Garasia, Aged About 30 Years, R/o House No. 1, Pratap Nagar, Dungarpur.

4. Dr. Kanak Yadav D/o Dr. Mahendra Kumar Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o House No. 3, Gali No. 2, Gokul Vihar, Dungarpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical Education

[2023:RJ-JD:32556] (9 of 22) [CW-4595/2020]

Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan.

2. Directorate, Medical Education, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.

3. The Additional Director (Administration) And Joint Secretary, Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education Society, Chiktsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.

4. Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Rajmes), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.

5. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Rajmes), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.

6. The Principal And Controller, Medical College And Associated Group Of Hospitals, Dungarpur.

----Respondents (7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4629/2020

1. Dr. Arvind Kumar S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Goyal, Aged About 38 Years, C/o Chetan Das, 8/46, Housing Board, Dungarpur (Raj.).

2. Dr. Gunvanti Meena S/o Shri Hari Narayan Meena, Aged About 35 Years, C/o Vardhman Medical, New Hospital Road, Dungarpur (Raj.).

3. Dr. Vijay Kumar Meena S/o Shri Nand Lal Meena, Aged About 37 Years, C/o Vardhman Medical, New Hospital Road, Dungarpur (Raj.).

4. Dr. Ajesh Kumar Damor S/o Shri Kamal Chand Damor, Aged About 35 Years, R/o New Doctor Quarter No. 1, Government Hospital, Dungarpur (Raj.).

5. Dr. Bhagyashree Garasia S/o Shri Arjun Lal Garasia, Aged About 30 Years, Quarter No. 4, Near To New Government Hospital, Dungarpur (Raj.).

6. Dr. Ankit Gupta S/o Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Aged About 31 Years, House No. 288, Pratap Nagar, Near New Hospital Road, Dungarpur (Raj.).

7. Dr. Jignesh Kumar S/o Shri Mishri Mal, Aged About 34 Years, C/o Sf-71, Sukumal Villa, Shivaji Nagar, Rajasthan Housing Board, Dungarpur (Raj.).

8. Dr. Kanak Yadav S/o Dr. Mahendra Kumar Yadav, Aged About 31 Years, R/o House No. 3, Street No. 2, Gokul Vihar, Near Old Rto Office, Dungarpur (Raj.).

[2023:RJ-JD:32556] (10 of 22) [CW-4595/2020]

9. Dr. Prabhash Bhavsar S/o Mr. Harihar Prasad Bhavsar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Gokuldham Society, New Colony, Dungarpur (Raj.).

10. Dr. Mamta Damor S/o Kailash Damor, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Plot No. 17, Near Pratap Circle, Pratapnagar, Dungarpur (Raj.).

11. Dr. Priya Vijay Kumar Gameti S/o Vijay Kumar Gameti, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 821, Sector-4, Pujanagar, Hiranmagri, Udaipur- 313002 (Raj.).

12. Dr. Mala Jain S/o Virendra Kumar Jain, Aged About 33 Years, R/o T/5 New Santosh Nagar, Tekari Madari Road, Gayariawas, Udaipur- 313002 (Raj.).

13. Dr. Rajesh Roat S/o Shivram Roat, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Plot No. 17, Near Pratap Circle, Pratapnagar, Dungarpur (Raj.).

14. Dr. Charita Meena S/o Surendra Kumar, Aged About 38 Years, Plot No. 380, Gali No. 1M Pragati Nagar, Dungarpur (Raj.).

15. Dr. Pintu Ahari S/o Mana Lal Ahari, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 11, Block Adinath Nagar, Sec. 14, Udaipur (Raj.).

16. Dr. Jeetendra Yogi S/o Rati Ram Yogi, Aged About 33 Years, House No. 8/1, Housing Board Vistar, Dungarpur (Raj.).

17. Dr. Kamlesh Damor S/o Taju Damor, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Gad Quarter No. 2, New Hospital Circle, Dungarpur (Raj.).

18. Dr. Arihant Tater S/o Madan Lal Tater, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Near Garh, Ratangarh, Dist. Churu (Raj.).

19. Dr. Rekha Roat W/o Dr. Chandra Prakash Roat, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Sf-38, Shivaji Nagar, Housing Board Colony, Dungarpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Directorate Of Medical Education, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.

3. The Additional Director (Administration) And Joint

[2023:RJ-JD:32556] (11 of 22) [CW-4595/2020]

Secretary, Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education Society, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.

4. Rajasthan Medical Educaion Society (Rajmes), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.

5. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Rajmes), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan Govind Marg, Jaipur.

6. The Principal And Controller, Medical College And Associated Group Of Hospitals, Dungarpur.

----Respondents (9) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6693/2020

1. Dr. Chhavi Shripat D/o Shri D.d. Shripat W/o Dr Manmohan Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o J- 93, Sector 14, Udaipur.

2. Dr. Guru Kumar Sain S/o Shri Gori Kumar, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of 808, Ganga Mata Ki Gali Jat Ke Kuve Ka Rasta, Chandpole, Jaipur Present R/o New Hospital Road, Dungarpur.

3. Dr. Ram Prakash Bairwa S/o Shri Jeevan Lal Bairwa, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Pragati Nagar, Dungarpur.

4. Dr. Sunita Dhaked W/o Dr. Gireesh Kumar Dhaked, Aged About 29 Years, C/o Dr. Suresh Chand Dhaked Kota Patti, Weir, Nayawas, Bharatpur At Present R/o Govt Medical College, Dungarpur.

5. Dr. Saurabh Jain S/o Shri Tilak Chand Jain, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Flat 202, 3Rd Floor, Vallabh Apartment, Navratan Complex, Bhuwana, Udaipur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Directorate Of Medical Education, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.

3. The Additional Directorate (Administration) And Joint Secretary, Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education Society, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.

4. Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Rajmes), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.

[2023:RJ-JD:32556] (12 of 22) [CW-4595/2020]

5. The Coordinator, Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Rajmes), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.

6. The Principal And Controller, Medical College And Associated Group Of Hospitals, Dungarpur.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr Vinay Jain
                                  Mr. Darshan Jain
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. K.S.Rajpurohit, AAG, through VC
                                  assisted with Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit
                                  Mr. Gaurav Ranka for
                                  Ms. Vandana Bhansali



                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                       Order

04/10/2023

1. This batch of writ petitions involves common facts and

questions of law and therefore, they are being decided conjointly

by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 4595/2020 : Dr. Praveen Singh Shekhawat & Ors. Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. are being taken into consideration.

3. The petitioners were appointed as Senior Demonstrators vide

order dated 20.08.2018.

4. After they joined, the petitioners were paid a basic salary of

Rs. 70,100/-, House Rent Allowance of Rs. 6,501/- and remote

area allowance of Rs. 25,000/-.

5. As per the terms of their appointment, the petitioners being

Senior Demonstrators were to undergo a probation period of two

years.

[2023:RJ-JD:32556] (13 of 22) [CW-4595/2020]

6. Before the petitioners could complete their probation period,

the respondent No. 6 issued an order dated 14.05.2020 and

reduced the salaries to be paid to the petitioners from Rs.

70,100/- to Rs. 58,000/-.

7. Thereafter, another office order dated 29.05.2020 came to

be passed, whereby the excess amount of salary paid to the

petitioners was ordered to be recovered in four equal quarterly

installments (of Rs. 36,500/-) from petitioners' future salary.

8. By way of present writ petitions, the petitioners have

challenged the above referred orders dated 14.05.2020 and

29.05.2020 on numerous grounds.

9. In some of the writ petitions, a challenge has also been laid

to proviso to Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Medical Education Society

Jaipur Personnel's (Recruitment and Other Conditions)

Employment Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of

2017). Those writ petitions were initially submitted before the

Division Bench, but later on, they were ordered to be listed for

decision before learned Single Judge by the order dated

03.02.2023, passed in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4708/2020 and

other connected matters.

10. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

there is an apparent and significant difference in the emoluments

being paid to the petitioners (working as Assistant Professors and

Senior Demonstrators) vis-a-vis the salary/emoluments being paid

to the other teaching staff, such as Professors, etc. He submitted

that the teaching staff such as Professor, Dean, Superintendent,

Additional Superintendent, the Clinical Staff such as Senior

[2023:RJ-JD:32556] (14 of 22) [CW-4595/2020]

Professor, Professor and even the non-clinical staff such as Senior

Professors, Professors, etc. are being paid salary as per Schedule

VI to the Rules of 2017, whereas the petitioners (working as

Assistant Professors and Senior Demonstrators) are being paid a

consolidated salary as per Schedule V.

11. Learned counsel took the Court through Schedule VI,

Schedule V and Schedule VII and contended that the respondents

have created a discrimination while paying salary to the

petitioners considering them to be probationer trainees. It was

argued that in Schedule V, only two posts, namely, Assistant

Professor and Senior Demonstrator, which are entrusted with

teaching duties have been included, while all other posts

mentioned in the said Schedule are the posts, which involve non-

teaching responsibilities. He thus, argued that these two posts

have wrongly been placed in the Schedule V which is meant for

non-teaching staff, due to which the petitioners are getting much

lesser amount than their colleagues discharging teaching duties.

12. Learned counsel in other words submitted that Schedule VI is

meant for teaching staff while Schedule VII is meant for non-

teaching staff and therefore, inclusion of posts held by the

petitioners, namely, Assistant Professors and Senior

Demonstrators in Schedule V is not only illegal and discriminatory,

but also devoid of any logic.

13. Elaborating his arguments further, learned counsel argued

that when all the posts entrusted with teaching duties have been

kept in Schedule VI, there is no reason or rationale for keeping the

posts held by the petitioners in Schedule V and requiring them to

[2023:RJ-JD:32556] (15 of 22) [CW-4595/2020]

work as probationer trainees for a period of two years or one year,

as the case may be.

14. Learned counsel also raised a grievance that when the VII

Pay Commission was implemented, salary of teaching staff and

non-teaching staff was increased, by order of the State

Government dated 08.03.2018, but corresponding increase in the

salary/emoluments of probationer trainees was not made. He

argued that such exploitative approach qua the probationer

trainees is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution

of India.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that

before passing of the orders impugned dated 14.05.2020 and

29.05.2020, the respondents have not provided any opportunity of

hearing to the petitioners and thus, these orders being violative of

Principle of Natural Justice are liable to be quashed.

16. Mr. Jain lastly submitted that the amount which was

disbursed has been put to use by the petitioners who had worked

in difficult terrains such as Dungarpur and Barmer, where people

are apprehensive to join and thus, on equitable considerations,

the amount of remote area allowance already paid to the

petitioners be permitted to be retained by them and the amount

which has so far been recovered from the petitioners be ordered

to be refunded.

17. Mr. K.S.Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General and

Mr. Ranka, associate to Ms. Vandana Bhansali appearing on behalf

of the respondent - State vehemently opposed the petitioners'

[2023:RJ-JD:32556] (16 of 22) [CW-4595/2020]

prayer and submitted that the arguments advanced by the

petitioners are untenable in law.

18. They submitted that when the petitioners joined on the post

of Assistant Professors and Senior Demonstrators they were very

much aware of the position that they have to work as probationer

trainees in accordance with Rules of 2017 and that they had

accepted their employment consciously with their eyes wide open

and therefore, when more amount has been paid to them

erroneously, they cannot claim any right to retain such amount. It

was argued that the State is fully justified and entitled to recover

the amount that has been inadvertently paid to the petitioners.

19. In relation to the increase in the salary of other employees

pursuant to the VII Pay Commission, it was argued by learned

Additional Advocate General that after considering all relevant

factors, the State has decided not to increase emoluments being

paid to the probationer trainees while giving benefit of VII Pay

Commission and increase in salary to the remaining staff who has

completed probation. Such decision being a policy matter is

beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny and cannot be gone into by

this Court.

20. It was vehemently argued that in exercise of its extra-

ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

the High Court cannot give direction to increase the salary or

emoluments, unless the salary being paid is shown to be

shockingly arbitrary or contrary to some statutory provision.

21. In relation to providing opportunity of hearing, learned

counsel for the respondents contended that as excess salary,

[2023:RJ-JD:32556] (17 of 22) [CW-4595/2020]

house rent allowance and remote area allowance were erroneously

paid to the petitioners, the respondents could recover the same.

22. It was argued by learned counsel for the respondents that

even if any notice was issued to the petitioners and their response

was called for, things would have remained the same. As the

payment was made to the petitioners contrary to provisions of the

Rules of 2017, they could in no manner justify the excess

payment received by them.

23. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

24. The petitioners' argument that the respondents have

arbitrarily kept the two posts, namely, Assistant Professor and

Senior Demonstrator held by the petitioners in Schedule V is

misconceived. Petitioners' endeavour to draw a distinction by

contending that only first two posts in Schedule V are teaching

posts while all other posts are non - teaching posts and that posts

held by the petitioners have been wrongly included in Scheduled V

equally lacks substance.

25. Schedule V is linked to Rule 29 of Rules of 2017, which

provides for payment to be made to probationer trainees whereas,

Schedule VI is linked to Rule 32 of the Rules of 2017, which

speaks of consolidated salary and allowances for teaching staff

and non-teaching staff.

26. Schedule VII is relevant for persons covered by Rule 32(2)

who are working on consolidated salary and are non-teaching

staff, whereas Schedule VI is the relevant Schedule issued under

Sub-Rule (1) of the Rule 32 which provides for salary to be paid to

teaching staff and the same definitely includes the posts held by

[2023:RJ-JD:32556] (18 of 22) [CW-4595/2020]

the petitioners, namely, Assistant Professors and Senior

Demonstrators.

27. It is because of Rule 29 of the Rules of 2017, the petitioners

are required to undergo probation period of two years and one

year, as the case may be, and per force proviso to Rule 29 of the

Rules of 2017, the petitioners and all other employees some of

whom are non - teaching staff are being paid a fixed

remuneration as indicated in Schedule V.

28. The arguments of discrimination meted out to the petitioners

by requiring them to undergo probation is untenable in the eye of

law. Because, Assistant Professors and Senior Demonstrators are

the posts at the entry level in the Schedule so far as teaching

posts are concerned. All other posts even of non-teaching staff

such as Principal, Superintendent, Senior Professor, etc. are not

entry level posts. These posts are to be filled in mostly by

promotion and whenever these higher posts are to be filled by

direct recruitment, there is a corresponding condition of

experience of having worked on lower posts such as Assistant

Professors or Senior Demonstrators.

29. The distinction or classification which the respondents have

created is a reasonable classification. A person who has already

gained experience and worked as Assistant Professor or Senior

Demonstrator cannot normally be asked to work as a probationer

and paid substantially lower amount than what he was drawing

earlier in other establishments.

30. As a matter of fact, two classes have been created for

teaching and non-teaching staff and their salary has been

[2023:RJ-JD:32556] (19 of 22) [CW-4595/2020]

prescribed in Schedule VI and VII of the Rules. Whereas, one

common Schedule V has been prepared for all newly recruited

employees on different posts, teaching and non-teaching alike.

Schedule V has been prepared in terms of Rule 29 which deals

with service conditions during probation period. Incidentally,

Schedule V includes only two posts which are teaching posts, but

no discrimination can be alleged by contending that other teaching

staff are getting salary as per Schedule VI. A perusal of Schedule

VI reveals that posts of Senior Demonstrator and Assistant

Professor have also been enumerated in it. And accordingly, after

completion of probation period, persons holdings these posts are

to be paid consolidated salary as per Schedule VI.

31. Such being the position, this Court neither finds any infirmity

or illegality in proviso to Rule 29 of the Rules of 2017 nor does it

finds any error in the State's action in giving a fixed amount to the

petitioners during period of probation.

32. Adverting to the arguments that prior to passing of

impugned orders, the respondents should have provided an

opportunity of hearing, it is observed that ideally, an opportunity

of hearing should have been provided to the petitioners as

recovery of purported excess amount affects their civil rights.

33. But then, this Court cannot lose sight of a vital aspect that

had the respondents provided an opportunity of hearing or issued

a show cause notice, it would hardly have made any difference,

because the excess amount has been paid to the petitioners due

to the inadvertence and the same was clearly contrary to Rule 29

and Sub Rule (6) of Rule 32 of the Rules of 2017.

[2023:RJ-JD:32556] (20 of 22) [CW-4595/2020]

34. Oftentimes, it has been observed by Hon'ble the Supreme

Court that Principles of Natural Justice are not an unruly horse and

no injustice can be said to have been caused by not affording

opportunity of hearing, if the facts and circumstances of the case

are otherwise clear and admitted. One has to demonstrate and

satisfy the prejudice caused to him by non adherence to the

Principles of Natural Justice, in order to get an order declared

illegal on the ground of breach of natural justice.

35. The grievance or the submissions which could have been put

forth by the petitioners pursuant to notice (if any) issued to them

have been canvassed by the petitioners before this Court, have

been duly responded to by the State and have been considered by

this Court. Hence, the order impugned, at this stage, cannot be

set aside on the ground of non-adherence to the Principle of

Natural Justice.

36. Having held that the petitioners were entitled to get fixed

amount as per Rule 29 of the Rules of 2017, as has been reflected

in Schedule V and that non-observance of the Principles of Natural

Justice is not fatal to the impugned notice of recovery, this Court

has no hesitation in holding that the petitioners cannot unjustly

enrich themselves and the State is entitled rather justified in

recovering the erroneously paid amount.

37. So far as petitioners' contention that salary of other

employees have been increased without there being any increase

in the emoluments payable to the probationer including the

petitioners, this Court is of the view that such grievance can best

[2023:RJ-JD:32556] (21 of 22) [CW-4595/2020]

be addressed by the State bearing in mind its financial resources

and constraints.

38. This Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India can neither examine the

sufficiency of the amount being paid to the petitioners nor can it

compel the State to amend the Rules or raise the salary being

paid to the probationers.

39. In support of his contention that the State cannot pay lesser

amount to a probationer during the period of probation, Mr. Jain,

learned counsel for the petitioners at the end relied upon the

judgment dated 29.07.2015 passed by the Division Bench in the

case of Gopal Kumawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D. B.

Civil Writ Petition No. 2963/2007.

40. It is informed by learned Additional Advocate General that

the matter is pending before Honb'le the Supreme Court and the

order in the case of Gopal Kumawat (supra) has been stayed. He

also argued that the Rules involved in the case of Gopal Kumawat

(supra) are different than the one involved in the present case.

41. So far as judgment in the case of Gopal Kumawant (supra) is

concerned, as the matter is sub-judice before the Apex Court, no

relief can be granted to the petitioners at this juncture. True, it is

that the Rules involved in the case of Gopal Kumawat (supra) are

different than the present Rules, but in the opinion of this Court,

principles may equally apply. Hence, a liberty is given to the

petitioners to move the State Government in the event the

judgment given in the case of Gopal Kumawat (supra) is affirmed

by Hon'ble the Supreme Court.

[2023:RJ-JD:32556] (22 of 22) [CW-4595/2020]

42. So far as the other allowances such as HRA and remote area

allowances are concerned, the probationers are not entitled for the

same, in view of the clear embargo given in Rule 29 of the Rules

of 2017.

43. It is to be noted that Remote area allowance has been

provided in Revised Pay Scale Rules and Note No. 1 of the

notification of Schedule I of the Revised Pay Scale Rules clearly

prohibits such payment to the probationer trainees.

44. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed.

45. The petitioners shall nevertheless be free to move a

representation before the competent authority of the respondent -

State for retaining the remote area allowance that has already

been paid to the petitioners and to claim full salary in case the

judgment in the case of Gopal Kumawat (supra) is affirmed by

Hon'ble the Supreme Court.

46. The stay applications also stand dismissed accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 66-68-69-72-73-74-75-76-78--akansha/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)