Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr. Prakash Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:47509) on 4 November, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:47509]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7897/2022
Dr. Prakash Choudhary S/o Labu Ram Choudhary, Aged About 52
Years, Plot No.16 Khasra No.359/02, Tirupati Nagar Jodhpur,
Rajasthan-342027
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical
Health And Family Welfare Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The State Appropriate Authority, Pre- Conception And Pre
Natal Diagnostic Techniques Prohibition Of Sex Selection
Act, Rajasthan Jaipur Through Its Chairperson.
3. The Director, Medical, Health And Family Welfare
Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg,
Jaipur Rajasthan
4. The Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Through Its
Registrar, Sector 18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Tonk
Road Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Kanchan Jodha for
Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
04/11/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following
prayers:-
"(i). by issuing appropriate writ order or
direction, the respondents may be directed to
implement in letter and spirit the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 07.02.2020
(Annexure-6) in Petition for Special Leave to
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:20:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47509] (2 of 5) [CW-7897/2022]
Appeal (c) No.3058/2020, titled as Anil Wasti
&ors. Versus State of Chhattisgarh &ors.
(ii). By further appropriate writ, order or
direction, the action of the respondent No.4 in
holding the petitioner not eligible to appear in the
exam is absolutely illegal and arbitrary.
(iii). By further appropriate writ, order or
direction the Certificate of Registration
(Annexure-8) issued by the appropriate authority
may be renewed after completion of the present
term.
(iv). Any other appropriate order or direction,
which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper
in the facts and circumstances of this case, may
kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an identical
bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.16799/2021 (Anil Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan and
Ors.) has already been disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 21.02.2022, wherein it was observed as
under:-
"15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
16. Upon perusal of the interim order dated
07.02.2020, passed by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court, it is clear that the said order was passed
in an SLP emanating from the order dated
17.12.2019,passed by Chhattisgarh High Court.
17. It is to be noted that on 17.12.2019,
Chhattisgarh High Court had refused to grant
interim order on the basis of the very same
judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered
in Voluntary Health Association of Punjab
(supra) and interim order in the case of Union
of India Vs. Indian Radiological and
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:20:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47509] (3 of 5) [CW-7897/2022]
Imaging Association and Ors. (supra).
Unequivocal reference of both these judgments
has been made in the said order of Chhattisgarh
High Court.
18. In an SLP filed against such order, Hon'ble
the Supreme Court has passed the interim order
dated 07.02.2020 and restrained the authorities
from taking penal action against such medical
practitioners, who have put in practice not less
than 15 years.
19. In the opinion of this Court when the order
passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court dated
17.12.2019 itself refers to the two orders, which
are being relied upon by learned Additional
Advocate General and despite this, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court has intervened and granted
interim relief, according to this Court, the matter
is better left to be decided by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court.
20. So far as judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of State of Assam Vs. Barak Upatyaka
D.U. Karmachari Sanstha (supra) is concerned,
the facts narrated therein clearly show that the
interim orders in the said case were granted by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a writ petition filed
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and
dealing with such factual scenario, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court observed that what is binding is
the final judgment and not the interim order.
21. As against this, this Court is faced with
interim order dated 07.02.2020, passed by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court against the order
passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court, which
notices both the orders of the Supreme Court.
22. Such being the position, pronouncing upon
petitioners' rights on the basis of the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Voluntary Health
Association of Punjab (supra) and the interim
order passed in Union of India Vs. Indian
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:20:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47509] (4 of 5) [CW-7897/2022]
Radiological and Imaging Association and Ors.
(supra) and ignoring the factum of pendency of
SLP and interim order passed therein would be
against judicial discipline.
23. While observing that this Court hardly finds
substance and force in petitioners' contention so
far as non-applicability of Rule 6 of the Rules of
2014 is concerned, this Court by no stretch of
imagination can hold that the interim order
passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court is not
binding, when the Supreme Court itself is seized
of the matter.
24. Mr. Bhandawat and other counsel
appearing for the petitioners, during the course
of arguments, submitted that the petitions would
be governed by the final verdict given by Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (c)
Petition No.3058/2020 : Anil Wasti & Ors. Vs.
The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
25. This being the position, these writ petitions
are allowed and the interim order(s) (if any)
passed by this Court is/are made absolute.
26. It is hereby declared that the petitioners'
rights and/orobligations to appear in Competency
Based Assessment/test shallbe governed by the
final verdict to be given by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in the case Anil Wasti & Ors. Vs. The State
of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (supra).
27. The respondents will, however, be free to
hold Competency Based Assessment/Test in
accordance with law for the desirous candidates.
28. Till the matters are finally decided by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court and/or the interim
order passed by the Supreme Court in case of
Anil Wasti (supra) is otherwise
modified/vacated, the respondent-State shall not
insist upon the petitioner(s) herein to appear in
Competency Based Assessment or undergo six
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:20:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47509] (5 of 5) [CW-7897/2022]
months' training in compliance of sub-rule (2) of
Rule 6 of the Rules of 2014.
29. All interlocutory applications stand
disposed of accordingly."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
present writ petition may also be decided in the same terms as in
the aforesaid writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to
refute the fact that the issue raised in the present writ petition is
identical to the one adjudicated in the case of Anil Choudhary
(supra).
6. In view of the submissions made above, the present writ
petition is disposed of in the same terms as Anil Choudhary
(supra).
7. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
20-Ashutosh/-
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:20:59 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
