2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 8279
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5450/2026
Dr. Savjot Singh Narang S/o Amarjeet Singh, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of 844, Dayal Nagar, Near Gurudwara Maya Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab.----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health Services, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Joint Secretary, Medical Education (Group-1), Jaipur.
3. The Director (P.h.), Medical And Health Services, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Swasthaya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur.
4. The Commissioner, Directorate Of Medical Education Department, Jaipur.
5. The Principal, Dr. S.n. Medical College, Jodhpur.----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Bishnoi for Mr. Siddharth Mewara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Milap Chopra
Mr. Navpreet Singh Deora
Mr. B.S. Sodha for Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
13/03/2026
(SANJEET PUROHIT), J
185-yagya/-
Order
1. Present writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of restrictive condition stipulated in Point No. 28 of order dated 28.01.2026, whereby Medical Education (Group-I) Department, Government of Rajasthan, in suppression of earlier order passed in relation to service bond executed by candidates undertaking PG and Super Specialty Courses in Government Medical Colleges, has provided that if any candidate, after completing PG/Super Specialty Medical Course, is selected for appointment under Central Government or under Government of the State of Rajasthan, such candidate shall be exempt from the conditions of service bond.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, Respondent-Department had issued an order dated 01.12.2025 (Annexure-3), whereby relaxation from the conditions of service bond was granted to candidates securing appointments under Central Government or any State Government recognized institution. It is submitted that after issuance of said order dated 01.12.2025, petitioner applied pursuant to an advertisement issued by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, for the posts of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor, and submitted his application on 30.12.2025.
3. It is further stated that in said recruitment process, petitioner was selected for the post of Assistant Professor in the specialty of Urology and was called for interview. After completion of selection process, petitioner approached respondent authorities for return of his original documents; however, learned counsel states, by that time, respondents had issued impugned order dated 28.01.2026, in suppression of earlier order dated 01.12.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that withdrawal of earlier order is wholly arbitrary and that subsequent order dated 28.01.2026 cannot be permitted to operate retrospectively. It is argued that once recruitment process has commenced on the basis of existing conditions, the rules of the game cannot be changed midway.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that conditions regarding execution of service bond were applicable to candidates at the time of their admission to PG / Super Specialty course in Government Medical Colleges, and the petitioner had voluntarily accepted the same with full knowledge of the consequences. It is further contended that order dated 28.01.2026 was issued prior to the issuance of the final order of appointment in favor of petitioner to Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, and, therefore it cannot be said that said order has been made applicable retrospectively. Learned counsel also submits that relaxation from the service bond has now been made applicable only in relation to government job under the State of Rajasthan, in view of the larger public interest of the State of Rajasthan, and the same cannot be said to be arbitrary and unjustified.
5. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although final order of selection / appointment has been issued after impugned order dated 28.01.2026; however, petitioner had applied for taking part in the recruitment process and also appeared in the interview process much prior to the issuance of impugned order. It is therefore submitted that contention of respondents regarding prospective operation of impugned order is misconceived.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon order dated 10.02.2026 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18011/2025, relevant para of which is quoted below:-
“23. Now, comparing Clause 15 of both the circulars i.e., circular dated 01.04.2025 and circular dated 28.01.2026, it is evident that the circular dated 28.01.2026 imposes an onerous condition upon the candidates of furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of service bond. As the said circular came into effect only on 28.01.2026 and the applicant/ petitioner No.3 has app