Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Vikramaditya Nagal vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 14 January, 2025

Author: Dinesh Mehta

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2025:RJ-JD:2487]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 978/2025

1. Vikramaditya Nagal S/o Bakshi Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Old Gajner Road, District Bikaner.

2. Ajay Bhati S/o Dr. A.g. Bhati, Aged About 44 Years, R/o 7-Gha-22 Pawanpuri South Extension District Beawar.

3. Vijay Shankar Purohit S/o Jai Shankar Purohit, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Barah Guwar Ka Chowk, Sadafateh Ke Pass District Bikaner.

4. Lal Singh Rajvi S/o Jaman Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Dheengsar Nokha District Bikaner.

5. Geeta W/o Bega Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Near Ramdev Temple Karnisar Bhatiyan District Bikaner.

6. Mangi Lal S/o Dhanna Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Nayagav Alay, District Nagaur.

7. Punam Chand Chouhan S/o Dhanna Ram, Aged About 44 Years, Goyalo Ka Mohalla Napasar District Bikaner.

8. Naresh Kumar Goyal S/o Shankar Lal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Goyalo Ka Mohalla Napasar District Bikaner.

9. Sharukh Pathan S/o Sikandar Pathan, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Near Govt Hospital Sinthal Road, Napasar District Bikaner.

10. Mahainder Singh S/o Bhanwar Lal Meena, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Moon Ka Joda Ragunathpur, Via Gudagourji, Tehsil Udaipurwati District Jhunjhunu.

11. Nitin Kumar Asopa S/o Baldev Prasad Ashopa, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Dhadhimati Bhawan Ke Pass, Inside Goga Gate District Bikaner.

12. Neelam W/o Punit Choudhary, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Mela Ka Bass Ward No. 3, Sonasar District Jhunjhunu.

13. Sameer Ahmed S/o Mohmmed Salim, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Teliyan Maszid Ke Pass, Ward No. 6, District Churu.

14. Surendra Singh Rathore S/o Bhanwar Singh Rathore, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Govt School Ke Pass, Shobhana Tehsil Nokha District Bikaner.

15. Prithvi Raj Ratanu S/o Kailash Dan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Kheendasar District Bikaner.

[2025:RJ-JD:2487] (2 of 6) [CW-978/2025]

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health Services, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Joint Secretary, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. The Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

4. The Director, Finance (Budget), Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

5. The Director (Public Health), Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

6. The Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical, Health And Family Welfare Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).

7. The District Collector, Bikaner.

8. Nodal Officer, Mnjy, Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

9. Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Limited (Rmsc), Department Of Medical And Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.

10. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bikaner.

11. The Principal, Sardar Patel Ayurvigyan College, Bikaner.

12. The Superintendent, P.b.m Hospital District Bikaner.

                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :    Mr. SK Verma
For Respondent(s)              :    Mr. NS Rajpurohit, AAG assisted by
                                    Mr. Sher Singh Rathore


                         JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
                                 Order

14/01/2025

1. While informing that petitioners are working as Urgent

Temporary Basis on the post of Nursing Officer, learned counsel for

[2025:RJ-JD:2487] (3 of 6) [CW-978/2025]

the petitioners submitted 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.).

2. In the case of Shruti Moyal, the following order was passed:-

"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 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.

[2025:RJ-JD:2487] (4 of 6) [CW-978/2025]

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

[2025:RJ-JD:2487] (5 of 6) [CW-978/2025]

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.

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

grievance.

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