Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anil Kumar vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 17 October, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:42330]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17141/2024
1. Anil Kumar S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Village Karhi, District Bharatapur (Rajasthan) At Present
Working As Assistant Radiographer (Radiodiagnosis) At
Rabindranath Tagore Medical College And Controller,
United Hospital Association, Udaipur (Date Of Joining-
03.11.2022)
2. Vikaram Sen S/o Virendra Kumar Barber, Aged About 35
Years, R/o 46/192, Naiyon Ki Talai, Udaipur At Present
Working As Assistant Radiographer (Mobile Unit-Iv Floor
Ssb) At Rabindranath Tagore Medical College And
Controller, United Hospital Association, Udaipur (Date Of
Joining- 08.09.2022)
3. Subhash Sharma S/o Kalu Ram Sharma, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Rawlyo Ki Dhani, Khadi Bag Road, Chomu,
Jaipur At Present Working As Assistant Radiographer
(Radiodiagnosis) At Rabindrantah Tagore Medical College
And Controller, United Hospital Association, Udaipur (Date
Of Joining- 01.1.2022)
4. Rahul Patel S/o Durga Shankar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Naye Mandir Ki Ghati, Bhilon Ka Bedla, Udaipur At Present
Working As Assistant Radiographer (Radiodiagnosis) At
Maharana Bhupal Govt. Hospital, Udaipur (Date Of
Joining- 14.09.2022)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health Services (Group-2),
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Joint Govt. Secretary, Department Of Finance
(Expense-1), Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Director (Public Health), Medical And Health Services,
Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. The Joint Director, Medical And Health Services, Udaipur
Zone, Udaipur.
5. The District Collector, Udaipur.
6. The Principal And Controller, Rabindranath Tagore Medical
College And Controller, United Hospital Association,
(Downloaded on 18/10/2024 at 09:37:32 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:42330] (2 of 4) [CW-17141/2024]
Udaipur.
7. The Superintendent, Maharana Bhupal Govt. Hospital,
Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Inderjeet Yadav.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
17/10/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a
judgment rendered by this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.12243/2024 (Shruti Moyal & Ors. V/s State of
Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 30.07.2024 in the following
terms:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following
prayers:-
"A. the action of the respondents while terminating the
services of the petitioners from the post of Assistant
Radiographer, Lab Technician and Assistant lab
Technician on the ground of availability of regularly
selected Lab Technicians despite the fact that posts are
still lying vacant, may kindly be declared per se illegal,
arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Constitution
of India.
B. The impugned orders dated 12.07.2014 (Annexure-
7) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
C. The impugned termination order of petitioner No.1
dated 10.07.2024 (Annexure-8) and order dated
10.07.2024 (Annexure-9) by which services of
[2024:RJ-JD:42330] (3 of 4) [CW-17141/2024]
petitioners No.1 have been terminated and all orders
issued by the respondents in the intervening period,
terminating the services of the petitioners, may kindly
be ordered to be quashed and set aside.
D. the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate
the services of the petitioners and they be permitted to
continue their services on their respective post.
E. The respondents may kindly be directed not to
replace the petitioners till the agreement of the
petitioners come to an end.
F. That the respondents may be restrained from dis-
continuing services of the petitioners and/or the
present place of posting of the petitioners may not
changed."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners were appointed on the urgent temporary basis for a
period of 3 months or till the regularly selected employees are
available with the respondent-Department, whichever is earlier.
Learned counsel submits that the regularly selected employees
are available with the respondent-Department, thus, the services
of the petitioners have been dispensed with vide order dated
10.07.2024.
4. Learned counsel further submits that after the regularly
selected persons having joined in the respondent-Department,
still there are number of vacancies available with the
respondent-Department for the post of Lab Technician and
Assistant Radiographers. He, therefore, prays that the
respondents may be directed that in case, there are vacancies
available in the Department and they are in need of services of
the petitioners, the petitioners' services can be adjusted in the
nearby areas of District Pali/Beawar.
5. Considering the limited prayer of the petitioner, the writ
petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.7-
Chief Medical and Health Officer, Beawar & respondent No.8-
Chief Medical and Health Officer, Pali to ascertain the number of
vacancies available with them in their jurisdiction and if they
desire to take the services of the petitioners on the post
available, the petitioners may be adjusted or accommodated to
serve on those posts till the regularly selected candidates are
available with the respondent-Department.
[2024:RJ-JD:42330] (4 of 4) [CW-17141/2024]
6. It is made clear that if any of the petitioner is not
discharging his duties satisfactorily, the respondents will be free
to discharge him from the employment.
7. Stay petition as well as other pending applications, if any,
shall also stand disposed of".
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners may be permitted to file an appropriate representation
before the respondents in the light of judgment rendered by this
Court in the case of Shruti Moyal (supra) for redressal of their
grievances.
4. In view of the 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 and decided by the
respondents at the earliest preferably within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of such representation, keeping in
mind the law laid down by this Court in the case of Shruti Moyal
(supra).
5. 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,
the averments made therein are found to be correct, the
petitioners would be entitled to the relief.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
48-AnilSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
