Advocates:
['SINGHVI', '', 'NITIN OJHA', 'GA', '', 'VIKAS BALIA', 'SUMAN PORWAL DYGC', 'MANISH SHISHODIA', 'MANISH DADHICH', 'IR CHOUDHARY', 'YASHPAL KHILEREE DYGC']

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.243/1987

Dr.Govind Narayan Purohit. vs. State of Raj. & Ors.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR.

:::

ORDER

:::

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.243/1987

Dr.Govind Narayan Purohit. vs. State of Raj. & Ors.

Date of Order :: 15.1.2015.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Mr.M.R. Singhvi, Sr.Adv. A/w Mr.Mohit Singhvi & Mr.Hukum

Singh, for the petitioner.

Ms.Sweta Bora for Ms.Suman Porwal, for respondent no.1

Mr.Vikram Choudhary, for the respondents no.4 & 5.

Mr.Vikas Balia, for the respondent no.7

...

Reportable

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

The instant writ petition has been preferred by the

petitioner Dr.Govind Narayan Purohit with the following

prayers :-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed

that by an appropriate, writ order or direction :-

(i)

rule 31 of the Rules of 1962 as reproduced

above and rule 3(k) of the Rules of 1962 be

declared as unconstitutional and ultra vires

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.243/1987

Dr.Govind Narayan Purohit. vs. State of Raj. & Ors.

2

(ii)

or in the alternative, the non-petitioner be

directed to determine the seniority of the

petitioner while taking into consideration his

services in pursuance of the order dated

20/22.4.1978 and to assign him appropriate

place in the seniority list of lecturers of E.N.T.

and to give all consequential benefits ;

(iii)

any other order/relief (s) which may be

considered just and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case may kindly be passed;

(iv)

writ petition be allowed with cost.”

3.

Since the petitioner had challenged the validity and

vires of Rule 31 of the Rajasthan Medical (Collegiate

Branch) Rules, 1962 (for short, referred to herein after as

'the Rules of 1962'), the matter was initially placed before

the Division Bench but thereafter, during the pendency of

the instant writ petition, the validity of an analogous Rule

{Rule 31 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Engineering

(Building & Roads Branch) Service Rules, 1973} was upheld

by the Division Bench in the case of Jagdish Chandra. vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.759/1984) by judgment dated 12.8.1988, whereafter

this Court by order dated 4.12.1992 directed the writ

petition to be listed before the Single Bench.

4.

It is pertinent to mention here that there appears to

be a typographical error in the order dated 4.12.1992

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.243/1987

Dr.Govind Narayan Purohit. vs. State of Raj. & Ors.

3

wherein it is mentioned that the validity of the Rule was

struck down whereas the fact remains that the validity of

the Rule was upheld by the Division Bench.

5.

Be that as it may, the Single Bench vide order dated

30.7.1996 allowed the writ petition preferred by the

petitioner and directed that the respondents shall give

continuous seniority to the petitioner from the date of his

initial appointment and also grant him all consequential

benefits arising thereof, after placing his name at the proper

place of seniority in the seniority list.

6.

The said judgment was challenged by filing a letters

patent appeal. The Division Bench by its order dated

28.5.1997, set aside the aforesaid order and remanded the

matter back to the Single Bench for fresh consideration

giving liberty to the petitioner to file an amended writ

petition after impleading all the persons likely to be affected

by the decision of the writ petition as respondents.

7.

It appears that while filing writ petition initially, the

petitioner did not array as respondents, the persons who

were likely to be affected upon the writ petition being

allowed and the petitioner being granted seniority from an

earlier date. After remand, an amended writ petition was

filed by the petitioner impleading seven (7) other persons

as respondents, who, as per