SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 14901

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
NUPUR BHATI
MOHAMMED IMRAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 16918 / 2025



[2025:RJ-JD:39125]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16918/2025

1. Mohammed Imran S/o Shri Mangu Khan, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Kotawalon Ka Bass, Village/post Khunkhuna, Tehsil Didwana, District Didwana Kuchaman, At Present Posted As Nursing Officer At Chc Sherani Abad, Block Didwana, District Didwana Kuchaman Rajasthan.

2. Mohammad Yusuf S/o Shri Gulam Sarwar, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Idgah Road, Ward No 15, Madrasha Ke Pass, Sikar, Presently Posted As Nursing Officer At Sdh Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Services, Govt Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director (Non Gazetted), Medical And Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Nagaur.

4. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Didwana- Kuchaman.

5. Senior Medical Officer In Charge, Chc Sherani Abad, District Didwana- Kuchaman.

6. The Block Chief Medical Officer, Didwana, District Didwana Kuchaman.

7. Principal Medical Officer, Sub District Officer Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar.

8. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Sikar.

9. The Superintendent, Govt Pbm Hospital, Sp Medical College Premises, Bikaner.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Y.P. Khileree.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

03/09/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners while submitting that identical writ petition being SB Civil Writ Petition No.10538/2016 : Kaptan Singh & Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. has been disposed of by Jaipur Bench of this Court, vide order dated 09.11.2017, prays that similar order be passed in the present case also.

2. Hence, identical order is being passed in the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Baser v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number

6707/2007, decided on 8th February, 2012, observing thus:

"After hearing of the matter at a considerable length, it is submitted by learned Additional Advocate General Shri R. L. Jangid that adequate number of Vacancies are available with the respondents to employee meritorious candidates, as a consequent of process of selection initiated under the Advertisement Annx-1. It is also pointed out that in a matter of similar nature i.e. SB Civil Writ Petition no.3414/2009 this court directed to employ persons who approached court without making any disturbance with the appointments already given.

Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case I deem it appropriate to accept the petition for writ with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for the post for which they applied under the advertisement Anx-1, if they are otherwise eligible and meritorious. The appointment to the petitioners may be given from the date appointments were to other persons as a consequent to the process of selection in question. The seniority and all other benefits including fixation of pay on notional basis in the event of grant of appointment shall be reckoned from the date appointments were given to other persons selected through same process. However they shall not be entitled for actual payment of wages for the period concerned. Necessary orders for compliance of the directions given are required to be passed by the respondents on or before 31.3.2012."

4. Learned counsel further asserted that despite repeated representations addressed by the petitioners, the respondents have not responded to the claim of the petitioners.

5. It is further pointed out that for the present, the petitioners would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide their representation within a time frame, in the backdrop of the adjudication in the case of Ashok Kumar Baser (sup

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top