Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,
CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Rasna Agrawal W/o Dr. Avinash Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5821/2023), decided on 26.02.2024 and therefore, prayed that similar order may also be passed in the case at hand.
1.1. In the case of Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan (supra), this Court passed the following order:-
“1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:-
“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and:-
(a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the proviso to Rule 56 of Rajasthan Civil Services Rules 1951 as inserted by amendment dated 31.03.2016 as it relates to superannuation in respect of MBBS Degree holder officer of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service may kindly be declared discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and same be declared as ultra vires and the respondents may kindly be directed to amend/include Medical Officers (Dental) holding BDS Degree in the proviso so that
The amendment to Rule 56 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, allowing different retirement ages for MBBS and BDS degree holders, was found discriminatory and unconstitutional under Articles 14 and....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition of discriminatory treatment based on qualifications, as it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Discrimination in the enhancement of the age of superannuation based on the type of medical degree held is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The court ruled that discrimination in retirement age among doctors performing similar functions violates equal protection principles, entitling Unani doctors to the same retirement age as Allopathic....
Amendments to age of superannuation regulations for doctors uphold administrative authority; no vested rights to administrative posts post-62 years established, ensuring compliance with constitutiona....
The age of superannuation enhancement is only applicable to roles involved in patient treatment, and is not discriminatory to deny it for research-related positions.
The court ruled that Ayurvedic Doctors are entitled to the same retirement age as Allopathic Doctors, affirming that discrimination based on classification is unconstitutional.
Reasonable classification under Article 14 allows differentiation in retirement age based on distinct roles and qualifications between medical and non-medical teaching cadres.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
