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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 7202

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
INDERJEET SINGH
MAHESH KUMAR YADAV S/O BHAIRULAL YADAV – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 18223 / 2022



[2026:RJ-JP:7792-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18223/2022

1. Mahesh Kumar Yadav S/o Bhairulal Yadav, R/o 181, Shyam Vihar Extension, Near Saint Thomas School, Girdharipura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Kamlesh Kumar Saini S/o Kanaram Saini, R/o Ward No.

19, Sri Madhopur, Sikar (Raj.)

3. Vijay Kumar Yadav S/o Radheyshyam Yadav, R/o 12-B, Chandanbari, Kalwar Road, Jaipur. (Raj.)

4. Suman Yadav D/o Satya Narayan Yadav, R/o A-24, Kalwar Road, Chandanbari, Jaipur (Raj.)

5. Mamta Saini D/o Phool Chand Saini, R/o Ward No. 6, Tehsil Khandela, Sikar (Raj.)

6. Rakesh Kumar Yadav S/o Mangilal Yadav, R/o Mela Ki Dhani, Via Kalwar, Jaipur (Raj.)

7. Hemraj Sunda S/o Madan Lal, R/o Village Prempura, Tehsil Rainwal, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005

2. Director, Medical And Health Department, Govt Of Rajasthan, Behind Secretariat, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302007

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Ajmer (Raj.) 305001

4. The Secretary, Ministry Of Education, Govt. Of India, 122-

C, Shashtri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Dehli-110001

5. The Secretary, University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, Additional Advocate General.

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Advocate.

Mr. Yuvraj Samant, Advocate.

Ms. Manjeet Kaur, Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order

18/02/2026

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed to kindly accept this writ petition graciously and grant following relief to the humbly petitioners: i) To kindly call for record of writ petition and may kindly be perused.

ii) To kindly quash and declare unconstitutional the requirement of regular course of MBA/ PGD as provided in impugned Annexure-2 for the purpose of qualification for the post of Hospital Care Taker as amendment by Notification No. F- 2(1)DOP/A-II/82 Pt. II Dated 06.01.2022 in scheduled-1 of Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Rules, 1965 and notification dated 06.01.2022 be declared unconstitutional iii) To kindly issue direction/ order to the respondents to treat distance education mode and/or online mode of MBA/PGD in Hospital Management/ Hospital Administration/ Hospital and Health Care Management Annexure-1 equivalent as per the direction issued by the Central Government in the state of Rajasthan and allow petitioners to participate in the examination of Hospital Care Taker as per advertisement No. 06/ Bharti/ HCT/ MAD & Health/ EP-1/ 2022-23 dated 23.05.2022 treating petitioners at par with the candidates of regular course. iv) Any other order, direction, relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of Writ Petition may also be awarded.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners in pursuance of the advertisement dated 23.05.2022 applied for the post of Hospital Caretaker issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred as ‘RPSC’), the qualification prescribed for the said post in the advertisement reads as under:

"शैक्षणि(cid:5)क योग्यता:-

(i) 1. Graduate from a University established by law in India; and 2. MBA/PGD (two year regular course) in Hospital Management/Hospital Administration/Hospital and Health Care Management from a recognised institute or its equivalent recognised by the State Government.

(ii) Working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri Script and knowledge of Rajasthan Centre.”

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the candidatures of the petitioners have been rejected for the said post by the respondents on the ground that t

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