Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mayank Naruka vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:3492) on 20 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:3492]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 867/2025
Mayank Naruka S/o Shri Anil Kumar Naruka, Aged About 40
Years, Resident Of A-16, Hudko Colony, Nimbahera, Chittorgarh,
Rajasthan, Pin No. 312601.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Medical And Health Science (Group-Ii), Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical And Health And Family
Welfare, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare
(Sihfw), Department Of Health, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Nursing Council Jaipur, Through Its Registrar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Arora with
Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC with
Mr. Tanuj Jain.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order
20/01/2025
1. Petitioner herein is before this Court seeking appointment to
the post of Nursing Officer pursuant to the advertisement dated
05.05.2023 (Annex.3).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid advertisement
dated 05.05.2023 was issued for the post of Nursing Officer. The
petitioner, having the requisite qualifications, applied for the post
under the OBC-NCL category. Being meritorious, the petitioner
was called for document verification. The petitioner thereafter
underwent the document verification process successfully, with no
adverse remarks regarding the qualifications and registration
possessed by the petitioner. The respondents have issued the final
merit list; however, despite the petitioner having more marks than
the cut-off, the petitioner has not been included, allegedly because
[2025:RJ-JD:3492] (2 of 3) [CW-867/2025]
the petitioner does not possess a valid registration with the
Rajasthan Nursing Council, based on a remark from the Council
that a No Objection Certificate was issued in respect of the
petitioner. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard and perused the case file.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the action of
the respondents in denying the petitioner's candidature based
solely on the ground of issuance of NOC by the Council, despite
the petitioner possessing a valid and active registration certificate,
which has also been renewed periodically, is without application of
mind, illegal, absurd, and contrary to the provisions of law.
5. On a query posed to the learned counsel for the respondents
qua the factual narrative pleaded in the petition, which is duly
supported by an affidavit, same is not disputed.
6. In the premise, I am of the opinion that the controversy
raised in the petition is squarely covered by a judgment dated
19.04.2021, rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Sangeeta Mathews @ Sangeeta Choudhary Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1552/2020.
The relevant portion of the judgment, being apposite, is
reproduced below:
"61. This Court cannot countenance the contention of the
respondents that on issuance of no objection certificate, a
candidate's certificate stands cancelled. The reasons are not far
to seek - firstly such argument is not supported by any statutory
provision and secondly, cursory reference of a letter dated
05.04.2018, written by Indian Nursing Council is of no avail.
Though the communication dated 05.04.2018 provides that on
issuance of no objection certificate, the candidate's registration
shall be treated to be cancelled, but there is no legal support to
this communication.
62. In the opinion of this Court erasure of entry of a candidate
in the register maintained by the Council can take place only in
[2025:RJ-JD:3492] (3 of 3) [CW-867/2025]
the circumstances envisaged under the Rajasthan Nurses,
Midwives, Health Visitors and Auxiliary Nurse-Midwives
Registration Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of
1964')."
7. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court, and I see no reason why the
benefit of the aforesaid judgment should not be granted to the
petitioner.
8. As an upshot, the petition is allowed. The respondents are
directed to process the petitioner's case and proceed further in
accordance with law. If the petitioner is found otherwise eligible
and fit in all respects for appointment to the post in question, an
appointment letter shall be issued to him within 30 days of his
approaching to the respondents with a web-print of this order.
9. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
13-/Jitender//-
Whether Fit for Reporting: Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
