Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh Chand vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:29165) on 7 July, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:29165]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5131/2025
Dinesh Chand S/o Shri Bheekha Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Chitalwana, District Jalore (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Services Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Project Director, National Health Mission, Rajasthan,
Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. The Mission Director, National Health Mission, Rajasthan,
Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
4. The Director (Ph), Medical And Health Services,
Rajasthan,tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
5. The Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical And Health
Services, Rajasthan,tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jayram Saran
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC
Mr. Tanuj Jain
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
07/07/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of
communication dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure-11) and subsequent
order dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure-12) whereby it has been
directed that all the Community Health Officers who had
submitted a bond of Rs.5 Lakhs at the time of appointment and
breached the same, would be relieved only after acting in
accordance with the conditions of the said bond.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy in question rests covered by the order passed by this
[2025:RJ-JD:29165] (2 of 3) [CW-5131/2025]
Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7728/2025: Leela Kumari
& Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (decided on 01.05.2025).
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Department does not
refute the above submission.
4. In the case of Leela Kumari (supra), it was observed and
held as under:
"12. This Court is of the clear opinion that the condition as
prescribed in advertisement dated 31.08.2020 shall no
more govern the present petitioner once she had been
afforded appointment vide a fresh appointment order in
terms of Rules of 2022. Once an incumbent has been
afforded appointment vide a fresh appointment order, she
would definitely be governed by the said order and the
Rules governing the said appointment.
13. Admittedly, Rules of 2022 do not prescribe for any
condition of a bond being furnished by the candidate.
Further, appointment order dated 26.04.2023 (Annexure-
6) also does not prescribe for any such condition. Had the
intent of the State been to ensure the compliance of the
bonds as furnished by the incumbents in terms of the
advertisement in the year 2020, definitely a specific
condition to the said effect would have been incorporated
in the Rules of 2022. The same having not been
incorporated, clarifies that it was never the intent of the
legislature to enforce the said condition.
14. Further, even the order of appointment dated
26.04.2023 (Annexure-6) which otherwise lays down the
specific conditions of appointment, does not specify any
such condition of a bond.
15. In the opinion of this Court, even if there was any
condition in the earlier advertisement dated 31.08.2020,
the same effectively lost its efficacy after the petitioner
having been afforded a fresh appointment by virtue of a
fresh appointment order and that too in terms of the Rules
of 2022 which were not in existence in the year 2020. The
petitioner would definitely be governed by the Rules of
2022 only and she can no more be governed by any of the
condition of advertisement dated 31.08.2020.
16. Further, there is one more aspect of the matter.
Admittedly, the petitioner has been appointed as a
'Nursing Officer' in pursuance to a recruitment process
undertaken by the State Government. That is to say, she
[2025:RJ-JD:29165] (3 of 3) [CW-5131/2025]
would now also be working with the State Government
only. Meaning thereby, the skills as gained by her during
the training as imparted during her contractual
employment, shall now be used in her job as a 'Nursing
Officer' with the State Government. It is incomprehensible
as to how can it be termed to be a financial loss to the
State Government when an employee who had been
imparted training for some particular contractual job,
continues to serve the State Government although, on
regular basis. The demand for deposit of the bond amount
proves out to be irrational and illogical on this count too.
By all means, the direction of the State Authorities for
deposit of the bond amount is bad in the eyes of law and
the same cannot be upheld.
17. So far as the judgment in the case of Manisha Devi
(supra) is concerned, the ratio of the same would not
apply to the present matter, the same being clearly
distinguishable. In the said case, the petitioner therein
was appointed after furnishing the specific bond and she
having been subsequently appointed qua some other
service, sought direction to be relieved. Therein, the Court
observed that she was bound by the conditions of her
appointment. Herein, condition of the advertisement itself
lost its existence/efficacy by virtue of the fresh
appointment order and therefore, the said condition would
not govern the present petitioner.
18. In view of the aforesaid observations, the present
writ petition is allowed. The communication dated
15.01.2025 (Annexure-11) and subsequent order dated
22.01.2025 (Annexure-12) are hereby quashed and set
aside. The respondents shall not pressurize the petitioner
to comply with the bond dated 18.09.2021 (Annexure-4)
as furnished by her and no punitive action shall be taken
against her for non-compliance of the same."
5. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed on
the same terms and conditions as in the case of Leela Kumari
(supra).
6. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
75-manila/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
