[2026:RJ-JD:7327]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6288/2025

1. Mohammed Imran S/o Mohammed Insaf Baig, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Anjuman Colony, Jalore, District-

Jalore

2. Dinesh Kumar S/o Himmataram, Aged About 42 Years, R/

o Hanuman Nagar Colony, Behind Gitco Hotel, Jalore District-Jalore

3. Narpat Singh S/o Balu Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o High School Road Tekrawas, Bhinmal, Teh-Bhinmal, District-Jalore. ----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Srevices (Group-Iii), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Mission Director (Nhm), Directorate Of Medical Health And Family Welfare Services, Swasthya Bhawan, C-

Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

3. The Additional Mission Director (Nhm), Directorate Of Medical Health And Family Welfare Services, Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

4. The Project Director (Nhm), Directorate Of Medical Health And Family Welfare Services, Swasthya Bhawan, C-

Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

5. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishwajeet Singh.

Mr. Abhishek Bishnoi.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanuj Jain, for Mr. Mukesh Dave, G.C.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

10/02/2026

1. Learned counsel for the respondents, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the present writ petition already stands squarely covered by an earlier decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23453/2025, titled “Jagdish Ram Godara Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” He submits that in the said matter, an identical challenge was negatived and the writ petition came to be dismissed on the ground of delay, the Court having specifically noticed that the petition had been instituted belatedly by 16 years, and while doing so, the Court was also pleased to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation in the light of subsequent developments, more particularly in the light of the judgment rendered in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 414/2019, “Suresh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors.”, decided on 15.09.2025, which governs the field.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to dispute the fact that the present writ petition is identical on facts and law to that of “Jagdish Ram Godara” (supra).

3. It is well settled that once the lis, legal issue and reliefs claimed are pari materia, judicial propriety, consistency and discipline mandate that this Court follow the view already taken by the Coordinate Bench.

4. In view of the above, and in order to maintain uniformity in judicial decisions in respect of identically situated persons, the present writ petition also deserves to be and is hereby dismissed with the same observations and directions as issued in “Jagdish Ram Godara” (supra), which reads as under:

“I. After nearly 16 years, again the present writ petition has been FILED by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to consider his fresh representation in the light of the subsequent developments in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. : D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 414/2019, decided ON 15.09.2025. The judgment of the Division Bench was restrictive in nature and the benefits of the judgment were made applicable only to the persons who were parties in the judgment of the Division Bench and so also all the candidates, who have obtained the orders based on the order of Rajkumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6207/2009, decided on 07.12.2016. The case of the present petitioner was not disposed of on the basis of Rajkumar’s case (supra).

II. When the Division Bench has restricted the operation of the relief which was granted by the order dated 19.12.2018 under hallenge, this Court cannot extend the benefit of the same beyond the scope of the Division Bench judgme