Dr. Prakash Chandra vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 March, 2026

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5959/2026

1.    Dr. Prakash Chandra S/o Shri Bharat Kumar, Aged About
      38 Years, Resident Of Village Lasodiya, Tehsil Sajjangarh,
      District Banswara. Posted At Chc Majhola, Dungarpur.
2.    Dr. Ajay Singh Meena S/o Shri Om Prakash Meena, Aged
      About 35 Years, Resident Of 5-A, Baba Khetan Nath
      Colony, Agra Road, Jamdoli, Jaipur, Posted At District
      Hospital Malpura.
3.    Dr. Akshay Dochania S/o Shri Azad Singh, Aged About 29
      Years, Resident Of Vpo Ghardana Khurd, The. Buhana,
      Dist. Jhunjhunu. Posted At Chc Mandrella.
4.    Dr. Hitesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Premsagar Meena, Aged
      About 34 Years, Resident Of Near Pashu Chikitsalay Ke
      Paas, Atru, Baran. Posted At Sdh Pidawa, Jhalawar.
5.    Dr. Megh Ram Meena S/o Shri Ram Charan Meena, Aged
      About 39 Years, Resident Of Village Tursangpura, Teh -
      Sapotra, Dist - Karauli. Posted At Sdh Dag, Jhalawar.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.    State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
      Department Of Medical And Health Services, Government
      Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.    State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
      Department       Of     Medical        Education,         Government    Of
      Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.    Joint Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health
      Services (Group 2), Secretariat, Jaipur.
4.    Commissioner,         Dept.     Of     Medical       Education,    Medical
      Education Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
5.    The Director (Public Health), Department Of Medical And
      Health Services, Directorate, Health Bhawan, Jaipur.
6.    The Chairman, M.d. / M.s. / D.m. / M.ch. Candidates
      Allotment Board-2025, Sms Medical College, Jln Marg,
      Jaipur.
7.    Chief Medical And Health Officer, Dungarpur.
8.    Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jhunjhunu.
9.    Principal Medical Officer, Sdh Pidawa, Jhalawar.

                     (Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 07:44:35 PM)
                    (Downloaded on 18/03/2026 at 08:47:54 PM)
                                         (2 of 5)                              [CW-5959/2026]


10.     Principal Medical Officer, Sdh Dag, Jhalawar.
11.     Principal Medical Officer, District Hospital Malpura.
                                                                       ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Kailash Choudhary.
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Tanuj Jain for
                                  Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC.


       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order 18/03/2026

1. Counsel for the petitioners submits that in similar

controversy, being SBCWP No.4685/2026 : "Dr. Vimla

Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors." this Court vide order

dated 24.02.2026 has granted interim relief while issuing notices.

The said order is reproduced hereunder:-

"1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is holding the post of Medical Officer and after completing PG course as an in-service candidate, the petitioner filled an application to undergo Senior Resident Course, as she is desirous of having the post of Assistant Professor for which the teaching and research experience includes one year Senior Residence in concerned subject in a permitted Medical College after acquiring the course of MD/MS. He also submits that an online application form for one year Senior Residency Course pursuant to notification dated 31.10.2025 and she has been declared selected for one year Senior Residency Course vide order dated 28.01.2026 and the petitioner is required to give her joining on or before 24.02.2026 as the last date has been extended further. However, despite her selection on merit, the respondents have failed to relieve the petitioner, thereby placing her career progression and academic advancement in serious jeopardy.

(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 07:44:35 PM)

(3 of 5) [CW-5959/2026]

2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that reply has been filed yesterday and specific averment has been taken in the reply that posting of the petitioner was made in public interest and administrative exigency. He submits that in the reply it has been indicated that around 450 Doctors are selected for Senior Residency Course and about 800 Doctors are selected for Post Graduation and relieving all Doctors simultaneously would seriously affect the Health Services. However, except for a bald assertion, no concrete data or material has been placed on record to substantiate the alleged acute shortage of doctors.

3. Contrary to the submissions of counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marks acquired in the NEET-PG examination are taken into consideration for the purpose of getting selected in the Senior Residency Course and for preparing the merit list. He submits with grit that in the current circumstances the petitioner has acquired the appropriate merit to undergo the Senior Residency Course and in case the respondents do not permit her to join the same, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated at the later stage.

4. While drawing the attention of the Court, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents vide circular dated 05.07.2022 have issued certain directions and in light of direction No.4, the candidate upon selection in the examination/interview or other educational activities, PG, DNB and other higher studies courses etc.,will be relieved from the Control Officer and will join the post. He submits that despite the said circular the respondents are not relieving the petitioner to join the said Course. Prima facie, the action of the respondents in not relieving the petitioner appears to be contrary to their own policy decision.

5. At this stage, this Court is also guided by the constitutional perspective governing the issue. As rightly observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Rohit

(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 07:44:35 PM)

(4 of 5) [CW-5959/2026]

Kumar v. Secretary, Office of Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.(Civil Appeal No. 2739 of 2021), doctors with advanced qualifications are an asset not only to the medical fraternity but also to society at large. After completion of the course, such doctors return to serve the cause of public health with enhanced skill and expertise.

6. Therefore, refusal of study leave or denial of permission to join a higher or career-advancement course solely on the ground of administrative inconvenience or a temporary shortage, without striking a balance between the constitutional rights of the petitioner and the long-term public interest, cannot be sustained in law. Advancement in medical education ultimately strengthens the public healthcare system itself.

7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, matter requires consideration.

8. Issue notice of the writ petition along with stay application to the respondents, returnable within a period of four weeks.

9. In the meanwhile, considering the imminent last date of joining and the irreparable prejudice that would be caused to the petitioner, the respondents are directed to relieve the petitioner latest by tomorrow i.e. 25.02.2026 and permit her to join the Senior Residency Course pursuant to the allotment letter dated 28.01.2026 (Annex-6)."

2. Counsel for the respondents raises an objection and submits

that the said interim order may not be passed by this Court as in

the other writ petitions, earlier, the last date for joining the one

year Senior Residency Course, was 14.02.2026, which was

subsequently extended to 24.02.2026 and the last date has not

been extended, thereafter. He thus, submits, that no extension

(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 07:44:35 PM)

(5 of 5) [CW-5959/2026]

has been granted thereafter and, therefore, the last date has

already expired.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners

cannot be made to suffer for the reason that the respondents have