Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manju Ghintala vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:42284) on 17 October, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:42284]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16982/2024
1. Manju Ghintala D/o Sh. Rajendra Kumar W/o Manesh
Kumar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Malsisar, Tehsil
Bhadra District Hanumangarh
2. Vimla D/o Sh. Hawa Singh W/o Suresh Kumar Chahar,
Aged About 35 Years, R/o Narsinagar PO Dudhwakhara
District Churu (Raj.).
3. Neetu Kumari Pooniya D/o Sh. Ranjeet Singh Pooniya W/o
Rajesh Daiya, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Khansoi District
Churu (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. Director, Medical, Health And Family Welfare, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sihag for
Mr. Manjeet Godara.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
17/10/2024
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:-
[2024:RJ-JD:42284] (2 of 3) [CW-16982/2024]
"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:-
"(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
petitioners.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:42284] (3 of 3) [CW-16982/2024]
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,
the averments made therein are found to be correct, the
petitioners would be entitled to the relief.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
31-Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
