Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr. Pankaj Kumar Dangi vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 27 October, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:46285]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20847/2025
1. Dr. Pankaj Kumar Dangi S/o Karu Lal Dangi, Aged About
34 Years, Posted At Primary Health Center (Phc) Parsola,
Block Dhariyavad, District Pratapgarh.
2. Dr. Dinesh Meena S/o Mangee Lal Meena, Aged About 32
Years, Posted At Community Health Centre (Chc)
Salamgarh, Block Dalot, District Pratapgarh.
3. Dr. Nikhil Ladawat S/o Chittar Lal Ladawat, Aged About
30 Years, Posted At Primary Health Center (Phc)
Nayaboriya, Block Dhariyawad, District Pratapgarh.
4. Dr. Mukesh Kumar Meena S/o Phaniya Lal Meena, Aged
About 31 Years, Posted At Primary Health Center (Phc)
Nalwa, Block Dhariyawad, District Pratapgarh.
5. Dr. Rohit Patidar S/o Kamlesh Patidar, Aged About 26
Years, Posted At Primary Health Center (Phc) Ghyaspur,
Block Dhamotar, District Pratapgarh.
6. Dr. Darulal Meena S/o Devchand Meena, Aged About 32
Years, Posted At Primary Health Center (Phc) Khunta,
Block Dhariyawad, District Pratapgarh.
7. Dr. Rahul Raj Solanki S/o Rajkumar Solanki, Aged About
35 Years, Posted At Primary Health Center (Phc)
Rampuriya, Block Suhagpura, District Pratapgarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Joint Secretary, Medical And Health (Group-2)
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan
Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
4. The District Collector Cum Chairman, Rajasthan Medicare
Relief Society, Pratapgarh.
5. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Pratapgarh.
6. The Block Chief Medical And Health Officer, Dhariyavad,
District Pratapgarh.
7. The Block Chief Medical And Health Officer, Dalot, District
Pratapgarh.
8. The Block Chief Medical And Health Officer, Dhamotar,
District Pratapgarh.
9. The Block Chief Medical And Health Officer, Suhagpura,
District Pratapgarh.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 27/10/2025 at 03:10:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/10/2025 at 09:49:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46285] (2 of 3) [CW-20847/2025]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Chand Gupta.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanuj Jain on behalf of
Mr. Mukesh Dave, Govt. Counsel.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
27/10/2025
1. Heard.
2. The present writ petition is relating to the disengagement of
the Medical Officer who was appointed on Urgent Temporary Basis
(UTB). The similar controversy has been decided by this Court in
the case of Dr. Shreeram Jhajhara & Ors Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20410/2025,
decided on 15.10.2025. The relevant portion of the judgment
dated 15.10.2025 reads as follows: -
"3. The main grievance of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the
petitioners were engaged on an urgent temporary basis
on the post of Medical Officer until regular recruitment is
completed for the said post. This recruitment is
conducted by a Committee constituted at the district
level and urgent recruitment was carried out to fill the
vacancies existing in the said districts.
4. The further grievance of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that, as per the selection made at the
district level, the petitioners were posted at the
concerned PHC. It is also submitted that until the regular
post is filled, the position of Medical Officer at the
concerned PHC is to be filled on a temporary basis.
5. Vide order dated 01.10.2025 (Annex.6), general
directions were issued to disengage Medical Officers
appointed on temporary basis wherever such vacancies
have been filled with regular employees.
6. The case of the petitioners is that certain vacancies
still remain unfilled by regular appointments and the
(Uploaded on 27/10/2025 at 03:10:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46285] (3 of 3) [CW-20847/2025]
petitioners' candidature should be considered for such
vacancies without initiating any fresh urgent temporary
recruitment, until regularly appointed Medical Officers
are posted in the concerned districts where the
petitioners and others were selected.
7. The fact remains that various persons were
selected by the District Level Committee, consisting of
district-level and other officers, depending on the
vacancies then existing and they were engaged on an
urgent temporary basis.
8. It appears that certain regular postings have been
made, as a result, the impugned common order has
been passed disengaging the persons wherever such
posts are filled up with regular postings. The
engagement of the petitioner along with others was on
temporary basis till regular recruitment is done.
9. If there are still any vacant posts unfilled by
regular recruitment or by any person on an urgent
temporary basis, such vacancies are required to be filled
from among the persons who have been disengaged due
to regular appointments.
10. Before disengaging the petitioner, the respondents
were required to consider all such disengaged persons
for any other posts that remain vacant due to the
absence/non-joining of regular appointments. Such re-
engagement shall be made based on merit and length of
service among the persons already disengaged in the
same district.
11. The said exercise shall be carried out within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
12. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ
petition is disposed of."
3. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is also disposed of in
the same terms as in Dr. Shreeram Jhajhara & Ors. (supra).
4. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
213-Mohan/-
(Uploaded on 27/10/2025 at 03:10:50 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
