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) 15464

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
ARUN SINGH S/O GOKUL CHAND – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 12911 / 2025



[2025:RJ-JP:50802]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12911/2025

Arun Singh S/o Gokul Chand, Resident Of 602, Surya Nagar,

Near Sudama Kutir, Gopal Pura Byepass Road, Jaipur, 302015.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The

Government, Department Of Medical And Health Services,

Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Secretary To The Government, Department Of Medical

Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Director, Medical And Health Services Department,

Government Of Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.

4. Director, Medical Education Society, Government Of

Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Jhakar

Mr. Ashish Nagarwal

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Mr.

Prakhar Jain

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

15/12/2025

1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner with following

prayer:

a). The order dated 17.12.2024, by which the petitioner lien on the post of Senior Medical Officer in Department of Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, was terminated may kindly be quashed upto that extent and it may be held that the petitioner is

entitled to resume the post of Senior Medical Officer in Department of Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, and the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to join his duties on the post of Senior Medical Officer in Department of Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan. b) Any other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be paid to the petitioner in the interest of justice.

c) Heavy and exemplary cost may kindly be imposed on the respondents and the same may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he was initially appointed on the post of Medical Officer on probation and after completion of probation, he was confirmed in service. He further submits that pursuant to a selection process for the post of Assistant Professor conducted by the Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Raj MES), the petitioner joined as Assistant Professor (Pharmacology) under Respondent No.4 and was posted at Government Medical College, Dausa. He further submits that the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents on 08.07.2025 indicating that the petitioner, who was not confirmed as Assistant Professor, desires to return to his earlier post on which he is having a lien. He further submits that the petitioner be permitted to join his earlier post as Senior Medical Officer under the Medical and Health Services Department (respondent No.3)

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. He submitted that on 17.12.2024, when the petitioner was relieved from the Department of Medical and Health Services, his lien was terminated and now the petitioner is not having any lien; therefore, he cannot return to his earlier position. He further submitted that as per the Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Medical Teacher Recruitment, Promotion and Service Conditions) Rules 2024 (in short “Rules of 2024”), the petitioner was appointed in substantive capacity and though he is on probation, once a person is appointed in substantive capacity, he cannot be permitted to return to the earlier position by invoking the right of lien. He placed reliance upon judgment in State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Dr. Hamir Singh Chouhan (deceased) through LRs: Civil Appeal No. 5392/2017 (Supreme Court), and submitted that once a petitioner has joined on a substantive post, he cannot exercise the right of lien on the earlier post.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record along with the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for respondents.

5. The short controversy involved in the instant case is that the petitioner was appointed under the Rajasthan Medical Services Rules,

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top