Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Trapti Pandey Do Shri Dwarika Prasad ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 23 March, 2020
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
(1) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1341/2019
Trapti Pandey D/o Shri Dwarika Prasad Pandey, Aged About 36
Years, Resident of C-22, Mahavir Nagar Extension, Kota,
Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
(2) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1395/2019
Kavita Sharma D/o Radhey Shyam Sharma, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Plot No. 52, Tapadiya Farm Colony, Roteda Road, Kota
Junction, Kota, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(3) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1398/2019
1. Bimala Kumari Nagar D/o Mansha Ram Nagar, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Vpo Baluhera, Tehsil Kanwas, District Kota,
Rajasthan.
2. Nazneen D/o Manzoor Ahamad, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Jama Masjid Ke Pass, Manohar Thana, Jhalawar,
Rajasthan.
3. Kum. Shyama Kumari D/o Durga Singh, Aged About 41
Years, R/o Anand Niwas, Bapu Colony, Rangpur Road,
Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota, Rajasthan.
4. Dhanraj Nagar S/o Jodhraj Nagar, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Vpo Kanwarpura Mandwalan, Tehsil Khanpur, District
(Downloaded on 23/03/2020 at 08:34:15 PM)
(2 of 21) [SAW-1341/2019]
Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, through its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Mukesh Kumar Malav S/o Sitaram Malav, Aged About 33
Years, R/o VPO Bohat, Tehsil Mangrol, District Baran,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(4) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1402/2019
1. Mukesh Kumar Nagar S/o Devlal Nagar, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Village Bilasara, Post Kanwarpura, Tehsil
Khanpur, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
2. Arvind Kumar Pachauri S/o Gangadutta Pachauri, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Jagariya Bhavan Ke Pass, Master
Colony, Bari, District Bari, Rajasthan.
3. Mansingh Khainbar S/o Ratan Singh Khainbar, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Mangal Vihar Colony, Saipau Road, Dholpur,
Rajasthan.
4. Narendra Singh Tomar S/o Khaim Singh Tomar, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o Anand Nagar Colony, Saipau Road,
Dholpur, Rajasthan.
5. Sushma D/o Vijay Singh, W/o Shelendra Singh, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Brij Bihar Colony, Madarpur Road,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
6. Pramod Kumari D/o Brijendra Singh, W/o Harendra Singh,
Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Karkala, Post Paprera,
Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
7. Jareena Banu Sheikh D/o Daud Bhai Sheikh, W/o Toseef
Khan, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Lanka Colony, Near
Dushara Ground, In Front Of Govt. Phc, Baran, Rajasthan.
8. Santosh Singh Parmar S/o Kok Singh, R/o Kumheri,
District Dholpur, Rajasthan.
9. Mohammad Haneef S/o Shaikh Bahadur, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Opposite Pavan Metal, Mangrole Road, Baran,
Rajasthan.
10. Gaurav Sharma S/o Aryamitra Sharma, Aged About 36
(Downloaded on 23/03/2020 at 08:34:15 PM)
(3 of 21) [SAW-1341/2019]
Years, R/o Village And Post Kelwara, Tehsil Shahbad,
District Baran, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(5) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1424/2019
1. Ashish Gautam S/o Ramesh Chand Gautam, Aged About
32 Years, R/o V/p Harnawada Shahji, Tehsil Chipabadod,
District Baran, Rajasthan.
2. Maniram Jat S/o Unkar Lal Jat, R/o Village Padaniya, Post
Shambhupura, Tehsil Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh,
Rajasthan.
3. Jitendra Kumar Chauhan S/o Mohan Lal Chauhan, R/o V/p
Richhawa, Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
4. Dharmveer Singh S/o Jamna Ram, R/o 1/17, Housing
Board Colony, District Churu, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(6) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1426/2019
Chandra Prakash Pathak S/o Gopal Das Pathak, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Pathak Bhawan, Malak Para, Bari, District Dholpur,
Rajasthan .
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 23/03/2020 at 08:34:15 PM)
(4 of 21) [SAW-1341/2019]
----Respondents
(7) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1433/2019
Nasreen Bahlim D/o Shafi Mohammed, W/o Mohammed Nadeem,
Aged About 32 Years, R/o H.no.86, Subash Vihar, Anantpura,
District Kota, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(8) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1435/2019
1. Roop Singh Meena S/o Shri Ramdayal Meena, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Meena Mohalla,vill Post Uadi Kalan The.
Gangapur City Distt. Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
2. Shamim Bano Kathri D/o Shri Sirajdduin Kathri, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Chhapan Ji Ka Pal, Uniyara, District
Tonk (Raj.)
3. Juber Ahamed S/o Shri Abdul Mannan, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Ward No.12 Iman Chowk, Todarasingh Teh.
Tonk, Distt. Tonk (Raj.)
4. Mohammed Zaheer S/o Shri Mohammed Shafi, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Near Syed Culb Ground, Mohalla Sadat Toda
Road, Malpura Distt.tonk (Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
4. The Mission Director, Nhm, Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme,
Jaipur (Raj.)
5. Muzahid Ahamad S/o Momin Ali, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
Mohalla Sadat Toda Road, Malpura, Tonk (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 23/03/2020 at 08:34:15 PM)
(5 of 21) [SAW-1341/2019]
----Respondents
(9) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1447/2019
Praveen Kumar Son Of Shri Ghisaram, Aged About 37 Years,
Resident of VPO Khandwa, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu
(Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Admn.) Medical And Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
4. Mission Director, NHM, Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
(10) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1448/2019
Ghanshyam Pradhan Son of Shri Kailash Chandra Pradhan, Aged
About 46 Years, Resident of V/p Narainpur, District Alwar, Raj.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Admn.) Medical And Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
4. Mission Director, NHM, Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
(11) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1450/2019
Dara Singh Yadav S/o Brijesh Kumar Yadav, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident of Village And Post Kansli, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
----Appellant
(Downloaded on 23/03/2020 at 08:34:15 PM)
(6 of 21) [SAW-1341/2019]
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(12) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1460/2019
1. Ankit Kumar Shah S/o Shri Kantilal Jain, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Bahubali Colony, Bansawara, Th.bansawara
Distt.bansawara (Raj.)
2. Hemant Tyagi S/o Shri Virendra Tyagi, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Hardev Nagar, Dholpur,th.dholpur Distt.dholpur
(Raj.)
3. Richpal Singh S/o Shri Gopal Ram, Aged About 44 Years,
R/o Rajpura Th.degana Distt. Nagaur (Raj.)
4. Khinwraj Khichar S/o Shri Deva Ram Khichar, Aged About
40 Years, R/o Vill. Sindlas Butati, Teh. Degana Distt.
Nagaur (Raj.)
5. Sunita Agrawal D/o Shri Ramavtar Gupta, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Shukla Colony, Nahar Road, Near Shiv Shiksha
Niketan, Teh. Gangapur City Distt. Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Rameshwar Dayal, Aged About
31 Years, R/o 3/84 Mangal Vihar Colony, Saipau Road,
Th.Dholpur Distt. Dholpur (Raj.)
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 23/03/2020 at 08:34:15 PM)
(7 of 21) [SAW-1341/2019]
(13) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1471/2019
Kamlesh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Devi Lal Jaiswal, Aged About 46
Years, R/o Shittla Colony, Tehsil Hindauncity, District Karauli,
Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Manju Saini D/o Babulal Saini, W/o Arun Kumar, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Mohalla Jaitpura, Ward No. 3, Near
Shyam Mandir, Behror, District Alwar, Presently Resident of
Mohalla Rao Ka, Near Vyas Ki Haveli, Narnaul, District
Mahendragarh, Harayana.
----Respondents
(14) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1476/2019
Uma Kumari Rana D/o Shri Vijendra Singh Rana, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Purana Risala, Rac Road, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(15) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1477/2019
1. Pushkar Lal Kumawat S/o Laxman Lal Kumawat, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Mama Dev Mohalla, Ward No. 11,
Rathanjana, Tehsil And District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
2. Anita Kumari Kumawat D/o Ganpat Lal Kumawat, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Panthwari Mohalla, Rathanjana,
Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
3. Takhat Singh Chundawat S/o Ranjeet Singh Chundawat,
Aged About 34 Years, R/o Kareliya, Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
4. Mukesh Khatik S/o Kanhaiya Lal Khatik, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Vpo Kulthana, Ward No. 13, Tehsil And District
Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 23/03/2020 at 08:34:15 PM)
(8 of 21) [SAW-1341/2019]
5. Meena Bhatt D/o Kanhaiya Lal Bhatt, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Nandod, Tehsil Sagwada, District Dungarpur,
Rajasthan.
6. Pawan Kumar Jain S/o Dariyaw Singh Jain, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Gogunda, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
7. Narendra Singh S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
Talai Mohalla, Ward No. 06, Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
8. Vishal Sharma S/o Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 35
Years, R/o 180, Kritikunj, Ward No. 21, Areapati Marg,
Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
9. Nitin Kumar Vyas S/o Narendra Kumar Vyas, Aged About
38 Years, R/o Dhariyawad, Tehsil Dhariyawad, District
Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
10. Harish Kumar Tailor S/o Ishwar Dan Tailor, Aged About 43
Years, R/o Kharedi Mohalla, Ward No. 3, Pratapgarh,
Rajasthan.
11. Manish Kumar Vairagi S/o Surya Prakash Vairagi, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o 62, Nandvano Ki Gali, Gaopalganj,
Ward No. 14, Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(16) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1480/2019
1. Noor Ahamad Ansari S/o Ahamad Husain Ansari, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o Sunel, Tehsil Pidawa, District
Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
2. Lokesh Kumar S/o Mangal Chand, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Village And Post Churela, District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan.
3. Asha Jatav D/o Bieermdev Jatav, W/o Pushpendra Kumar,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Itawa, Teacher
Colony, Pipalda Road Itawa, Tehsil Pipaldas, District Kota,
Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
(Downloaded on 23/03/2020 at 08:34:15 PM)
(9 of 21) [SAW-1341/2019]
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Virendra Singh Yadav S/o Dharamveer Singh Yadav, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o Village Molawas, Post Jalawas, Tehsil
Mundawar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
4. Umender Kumar Jaiman S/o Raj Rajesh Kumar Jaiman,
Aged about 32 years, R/o VPO Barodamev, Tehsil
Laxmangarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
5. Bimala Kumari Nagar D/o Mansha Ram Nagar, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Vpo Baluhera, Tehsil Kanwas, District Kota,
Rajasthan.
6. Mukesh Kumar Malav S/o Sitaram Malav, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Vpo Bohat, Tehsil Mangrol, District Baran,
Rajasthan.
7. Nazneen D/o Manzoor Ahamad, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Jama Masjid Ke Pass, Manohar Thana, Jhalawar,
Rajasthan.
8. Kum. Shyama Kumari D/o Durga Singh, Aged About 41
Years, R/o Anand Niwas, Bapu Colony, Rangpur Road,
Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota, Rajasthan.
9. Dhanraj Nagar S/o Jodhraj Nagar, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Vpo Kanwarpura Mandwalan, Tehsil Khanpur, District
Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
10. Dinesh Kumar Khadiya S/o Shri Ram Khadiya, Aged About
33 Years, R/o VPO Rampura, Via Pawata, Tehsil Kotputli,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(17) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1483/2019
1. Dharmendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Munshi Lal Meena,
Aged About 36 Years, R/o Meena Mauhalla Vill.post Udai
Kalan Th.gangapur City Distt. Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
2. Satvir Singh Kulkhandhya S/o Shri Gori Shanker Singh
Kulkhandhya, Aged About 35 Years, R/o C-115/116
Punarwas Colony Vill. Sagwara Teh. Sagwara Distt.
Dungarpur (Raj.)
3. Nisha Patidar D/o Shri Amrit Lal Patidar, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Patidar Mohalla, Vill. Post Chitri, Teh. Galiyakot,
(Downloaded on 23/03/2020 at 08:34:15 PM)
(10 of 21) [SAW-1341/2019]
Distt. Dungarpur (Raj.)
4. Jyoti Aheer D/o Shri Ram Prakash, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o 376, Pratap Nagar 1, Devil Arab Road Borkhera, Teh.
Ladpura, Kota (Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Ajay Kumar Sagar S/o Shri Tota Ram Sagar, Aged About
34 Years, R/o Bhim Nagar, Tehsil Road Teh. Sarmathura
Distt. Dholpur (Raj.)
4. Syed Motasham Naqvi S/o Shri Syed Salamat Ali, Aged
About 41 Years, R/o Mohalla Sadat, Malpura Teh. Malpura
Distt. Tonk (Raj.)
----Respondents
(18) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1490/2019
1. Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Ghisaram, Aged About 37 Years,
Resident of VPO Khandwa, Teshil Buhana, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
2. Manesh Singh Chhichholia S/o Shri Ramavatar
Chhichholia, Aged About 32 Years, R/o VPO Sherpur, Tehsil
Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg C-Scheme, Jaipur.
4. Mission Director, NHM, Swasthya Bhawan, C Scheme,
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
(19) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1498/2019
(Downloaded on 23/03/2020 at 08:34:15 PM)
(11 of 21) [SAW-1341/2019]
Ashok Kumar Tanwar S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Village And Post Shuklawas, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(20) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1500/2019
1. Ahmed Raza S/o Shri Ishaq Ahmed, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o Sipahi Mohalla, Udai Kalan Teh. Gangapur City Distt.
Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
2. Sanjay Kumar Rathor S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Rathor,
Aged About 31 Years, R/o Nai Aabadi Kundla Road,
Chaumahla Teh. Gangdhar Distt. Jhalawar (Raj.)
3. Pramod Kumar Soni S/o Shri Om Prakash Soni, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Chechat Vill. Chechat
Th.ramganjmandi Distt. Kota (Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Mohammed Sazid S/o Shri Mohammed Ismaeel, Aged
About 40 Years, R/o Kidwai Colony, Dhanota Road Malpura
Th. Malpura Distt. Tonk (Raj.)
4. Nazeer Ahmad S/o Shri Abdul Naseer Ahmad, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Vill. Uchawada Post Gulkhedi Teh. Aklera
Distt. Jhalawar (Raj.)
5. Syed Abdul Majeed S/o Shri Syed Intzam Ali, Aged About
42 Years, R/o Kasaiyon Ki Masjid Ke Samne, Malpura Teh.
Malpura Distt. Tonk (Raj.)
6. Anwar Husain S/o Shri Mukrram Ali, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Moin Ki Chakki Ke Pass, Mohalla Sadat, Malpura Teh.
Malpura Distt. Tonk (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 23/03/2020 at 08:34:15 PM)
(12 of 21) [SAW-1341/2019]
----Respondents
(21) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1512/2019
Ratan Priya Chundawat D/o Bhanwar Singh Chundawat, Aged
About 41 Years, R/o House No. 12, Maruti Nagar, Charbhuja
Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(22) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1519/2019
1. Manojee D/o Devee Singh, W/o Kedar Singh, Aged About
39 Years, R/o R.K. Puram, Brij Nagar, Achhnera Road,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
2. Rajesh D/o Shyam Singh, W/o Rajvir Singh, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Govind Nagar, Near Balbhara School,
Madarpur Road, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
3. Saroj Kumari D/o Sudar Lal Sharma, Aged About 41 Years,
R/o E-386, Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(23) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1597/2019
Asha Jat D/o Kailash Chandra Jat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Village Palthan Post Vasmandal Tehsil And District Pratapgarh,
Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
(Downloaded on 23/03/2020 at 08:34:15 PM)
(13 of 21) [SAW-1341/2019]
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(24) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1755/2019
1. Smt. Manoj Siggar D/o Shri Dayanand Siggar, Resident of
Village Basadi, Teshil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu,
(Rajasthan).
2. Smt. Krishna Kumari D/o Shri Ratibhan W/o Shri
Satyadev, Resident of Village Kundansinghpura, Post
Rodwal, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar (Rajasthan).
3. Laxmi Devi D/o Shri Churaman Singh, Resident of Village
Nangla Aaju, Tehsil Khumher, District Bharatpur
(Rajasthan).
4. Seema D/o Shri Churaman Singh, Resident of Village
Nangla Aaju, Tehsil Khumher, District Bharatpur
(Rajasthan).
5. Smt. Nirmala D/o Shri Bhikhu Singh W/o Shri Rajkumar
Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Resident of Dhani Kali Ghati,
Papurana, Lalgarh, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu
(Rajasthan).
6. Smt. Nisha Yadav D/o Shri Dharmveer Singh W/o Shri
Sunil Yadav, Aged About 39 Years, Resident of Village
Naghori, District Alwar.
7. Vidhya Sagar Mangal S/o Shri Ram Nibas Gupta, Resident
of Teachers Colony, Bypass Road, New Bus Stand Basari,
District Dholpur (Rajasthan).
8. Naveen Prakash S/o Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Resident of
Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical, Health And Family Welfare Department,
Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, (Rajasthan).
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services Rajasthan,
Swasthaya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services
Rajasthan, Swasthaya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 23/03/2020 at 08:34:15 PM)
(14 of 21) [SAW-1341/2019]
For Appellant(s) : Shri Iliyas Khan, Shri Ram Pratap Saini
and Shri Mahendra Kumar Saini
For Respondent(s) : Shri Harshal Tholia on behalf of Dr.
Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, Addl.
Advocate General
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgement Reserved on :: 14/02/2020______
Judgement Pronounced on :: _____23/03/2020______
(PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL)
1. All these intra court appeals have been filed against the
judgement dated 29.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge
whereby, the writ petitions preferred by the appellants herein
seeking benefit of bonus marks on the basis of their experience
gained under National Rural Health Mission Scheme (for short-'the
NRHM') in States other than State of Rajasthan, have been
dismissed.
2. The facts in brief, as emerge from perusal of the record are
that the respondent-State of Rajasthan vide advertisement dated
30.05.2018, invited applications for appointment on the post of
Nurse Gr.II under Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate
Service Rules, 1965 (for short-`the Rules of 1965'). Contending
that the appellants possessed the requisite qualification for
appointment on the post of Nurse Gr.II; but, were excluded from
the final merit list inasmuch as they were not extended the benefit
of bonus marks awardable on the basis of length of experience by
working under NRHM besides other schemes as contemplated
under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 on the premise that they have
gained the experience under the scheme in States other than
(Downloaded on 23/03/2020 at 08:34:15 PM)
(15 of 21) [SAW-1341/2019]
State of Rajasthan whereas the benefit was confined by the
respondents to the candidates having gained experience under the
scheme working in the State of Rajasthan only, the writ petitions
were filed. The appellants contended that since the NRHM scheme
is a Central Government scheme, the respondents acted in
violation of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
by confining the benefit of experience to the candidates working
under this scheme in the State of Rajasthan only. The appellants
relied upon the order dated 18.11.2013 passed by single bench of
this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16545/2013, Mahesh
Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., the
order dated 9.2.2016 passed by the division bench of this Court at
Principal Seat, Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.12942/2015, Jagdish Prasad & Ors. vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors., the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the
single bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.13230/2018, Ashok Kumar Saini & Ors. vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors., which has been upheld by the division bench
in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.42/2019, Shiv Kumar
Meena & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other
connected appeals vide order dated 28.02.2019 to impress upon
this Court that the issue as to the award of bonus marks to a
candidate on account of experience of working under NRHM
anywhere in India is no more res integra as it has been held by
this Court in the aforesaid cases that no discrimination can be
made by the respondents on this count.
3. The learned Single Judge has, vide its impugned judgement
dated 29.8.2019, dismissed the writ petitions. Hence these
appeals.
(Downloaded on 23/03/2020 at 08:34:15 PM)
(16 of 21) [SAW-1341/2019]
4. Assailing the impugned judgement passed by the learned
Single Judge, learned counsels appearing for the appellants
submitted that the same is not sustainable in the light of the
judgements of the division benches of this Court in the cases of
Jagdish Prasad & Ors. (supra) and Shiv Kumar Meena and
Ors. (supra). It was contended that since the NRHM is a Central
Government Scheme implemented by various State Governments,
the persons working under this Scheme could not have been
discriminated upon for award of bonus marks on account of place
of work and such discrimination is hit by the mandate of Article 14
of the Constitution of India. They, therefore, prayed that the
impugned judgement as well as action of the respondents in
subjecting the appellants to hostile discrimination may be quashed
and the appeals be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
contended that the respondent-State was well within its competence to confine the benefit of bonus marks only to the employees working in the State of Rajasthan even under the NRHM scheme inasmuch as such candidates are acquainted with the health care issues of the people of Rajasthan and in particular medical care which is required as per the demographic condition of the State of Rajasthan. He submitted that the respondent- State, as a matter of policy, has taken a conscious decision to extend the benefit of weightage of bonus marks to the employees working in the State of Rajasthan only and, the appellants, cannot claim this benefit as a matter of right. He relies upon the judgements of the coordinate benches of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.673/2019 [State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Daulat Ram & Ors.] & (Downloaded on 23/03/2020 at 08:34:15 PM) (17 of 21) [SAW-1341/2019] connected appeals; D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13131/2018 [Ratan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.] and other connected petitions decided vide order dated 05.08.2019; and D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.837/2019 [State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Satya Dev Bhagaur & Ors.] decided on 13.08.2019. He, therefore, prayed that the appeals be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record as well as judgements cited by the respective counsels.
7. A Full Bench judgement of this Court dated 30.11.2015 in Rajkumar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6207/2009 and other connected writ petitions, on reference, held, after forensically examining the scheme of NRHM, as under:
"As already discussed, the object of the NRHM is to provide accessible, affordable and accountable quality health service to the poorest households in the remotest rural regions. To achieve this object the thrust of the mission is on establishing a fully functional community owned, decentralised health delivery system with intersectoral conversance at all levels to ensure simultaneous action on a wide range of detriments of health like water, sanitation, education, nutrition, social and general quality. The scheme is having multi tasks and for that purpose local teams headed by health and sanitation committee at panchayat level are to be formed. The scheme in so many words emphasise aid and assistance of local residents in its implementation and further to have their service as experts and resource persons. The scheme demands uninterrupted availability of the staff responsible to execute different programmes. It also requires setting up of planning teams and committees by local residents on habitation/village, (Downloaded on 23/03/2020 at 08:34:15 PM) (18 of 21) [SAW-1341/2019] gram panchayat, primary health centre and cluster level basis. Further pertinent to notice that the engagement of the staff in NRHM from locals is neither a concession nor a reservation, but a tactics for effective implementation of the scheme. The locals are certainly in better position to identify the specific health issues of the area concern with more effective persuasive value to bring the habitants of area within the fold of NRHM. The needs noticed indicate that engagement of paramedical staff by examining merit at district level is in accordance with the frame and purport of the National Rural Health Mission. It is a just and reasonable classification with intelligible differentia to achieve the objects enshrined. Accordingly, the first question referred to us is answered by holding that engagement of paramedical staff with preparation of merit at District level does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The second question is that whether while engaging paramedical staff in National Rural Health Mission, any reference to the place of residence and/or local criteria is permissible in law or not?
We are of the view that in light of the complete scheme of NRHM as discussed, the assistance and support of the locals in its implementation is essential and, therefore, for the purpose of engagement of staff, if preference is given on basis of the place of residence and/or local criteria among the equals, then that is not irrational or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The engagement of staff under National Rural Health Mission at district level and by providing preference to the locals, equals have not been treated differently without any justifiable reasons. As such, there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The second question referred is also answered accordingly."
8. Although, the question, the Full Bench was answering, was slightly different from the controversy herein; but, it was (Downloaded on 23/03/2020 at 08:34:15 PM) (19 of 21) [SAW-1341/2019] categorically held by the Full Bench of this Court that in order to advance the object of NRHM, the State Government is well within its right if preference is given to the engagement of people on the basis of residence and/or local criteria and in such circumstances, it cannot be said equals have not been treated differently without justifiable reasons and it would lead to no violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
9. In the light of aforesaid dictum, we find no fault with the policy of the State Government whereby, it has decided to extend the benefit of bonus marks to the candidates working in the State of Rajasthan alone even under the Centralised Scheme such as NRHM. We are in complete agreement with the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the candidates, who have gained experience by working in various schemes in the State of Rajasthan as defined under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965, form a well defined separate class and confining the weightage of the bonus marks to such class, is based on intelligible differentia having reasonable nexus with the object of rendering the medical facilities to the people of Rajasthan especially in the rural areas as such candidates would be better acquainted with the health care issues of the people of Rajasthan as per its demographic condition.
10. Insofar as the judgements of the coordinate benches of this Court in Jagdish Prasad & Ors. (supra) and Shiv Kumar Meena (supra) are concerned, the dispute involved therein was totally different. In Jagdish Prasad & Ors., petitioners challenged the validity of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 which confined benefit of bonus marks to the persons working with the Government, NRHM and Medi Care Relief Society only; but, not to (Downloaded on 23/03/2020 at 08:34:15 PM) (20 of 21) [SAW-1341/2019] the other persons like the petitioners who were discharging similar work with other institutions including the government hospitals of other States and the coordinate bench did not find any illegality in the action of the State Government confining the benefit to a class of persons enumerated under Rule 19. Similarly, in Shiv Kumar Meena & Ors. (supra), the writ petitions filed by the appellants therein seeking benefit of bonus marks for working on the post of Ambulance Paramedics under the NRHM Scheme with Centralised Accident & Trauma Services, an autonomous body of the Government of NCT of Delhi, were dismissed. The division bench of this Court in the aforesaid case concurred with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the working of Ambulance Paramedics cannot be treated to be equivalent to the working of Nurse Gr.II and resultantly, the appeals were dismissed. Therefore, the aforesaid judgements of the coordinate benches of this Court are of no help to the appellants. However, we find that a division bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Satya Devi Bhagaur & Ors. (supra) held as under:
"This Court is of the opinion that the observation made in Krishan Kumar Saini's Case (supra) cannot be treated as binding precedent that the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2018 specifically confined the grant of bonus marks, to enumerated categories of employees, who had gained experience while working in various institutions in Rajasthan or for the State of Rajasthan, in the concerned schemes. This view is also in accord with the previous Division Bench judgment in Gaurav Kumar Sen & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.24245/2018, decided on 29.102018]. Besides, this Court notices that the rules were amended, having regard to the interpretation (Downloaded on 23/03/2020 at 08:34:15 PM) (21 of 21) [SAW-1341/2019] given by other Division Bench, after the introduction of the award of bonus marks scheme by the Rules of 2013.
In these circumstance, the intention of the State was to confine the benefit of award of bonus marks to those employed in the enumerated schemes within the State of Rajasthan and not others."
11. We are in agreement with the view already taken by a division bench of this Court in the aforesaid case. We find no illegality or perversity in the judgement impugned herein warranting interference in the intra court appeals. Resultantly, the special appeals are dismissed being devoid of merit.
12. Office to place a copy of this judgement in each connected matter.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J (SANGEET LODHA),J RAVI SHARMA /3-26 (Downloaded on 23/03/2020 at 08:34:15 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)