[2026:RJ-JD:12592]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1506/2026 Neha Gehlot D/o Surta Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Indra Colony, Nagaur Road, Phalodi, District Phalodi (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Director, State Health And Family Welfare Institute, Government Of Rajasthan, Directorate, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. The Joint Director, Medical And Health Department (Zone-

Jodhpur), Jodhpur (Raj.).

4. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Balotara, District Balotara (Raj.).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gopal Lal Acharya For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

17/03/2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an identical writ petition bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No. 10538/2016 titled Kaptan Singh & Ors v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. has been disposed of by this Court at Jaipur Bench vide order dated 09.11.2017, and prays that similar order be passed in present matter also.

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

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy raised in instant writ application stands resolved in view of adjudication made by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.02.2012 passed in the case of Ashok Kumar Baser v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6707/2007, wherein it has been observed 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 no3414/2009 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 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 submits that despite repeated representations of petitioners, respondents have not responded to claim of petitioners. It is also pointed out that, for the present, it would serve the interests of petitioners if Respondent Authorities are directed to consider and decide their representation in a time bound manner, in light of order dated 08.02.2012 passed in the case of Ashok Kumar Baser (supra).

5. In view of limited prayer made, petitioners are directed to submit a fresh representation, along with a certified copy of this order, while also enclosing copies of opinions which they intend to refer to and rely upon, as well as a copy of notice for demand of justice addressed to the counsel, within two weeks from today.

6. In case, such representation is submitted by petitioners within stipulated period, Respondent Authorities are directed to consider and decide the same in light of the order passed in the case of Ashok Kumar Baser (supra), by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Said