Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dr. Anju Kumawat Daughter Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 October, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12024/2020
1. Dr. Anju Kumawat Daughter Of Shri Mahaveer Prasad
Kumawat, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Village And
Post Khandela, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar (Raj.)
2. Dr. Manisha Saini Daughter Of Shri Ram Lal Saini, Aged
About 25 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Gambhira,
Tehsil Nainwan, District Bundi (Raj.)
3. Dr. Suresh Singal Son Of Shri Din Dayal Agrawal, Aged
About 43 Years, Resident Of 40- K, Block Near Tandon
Lab. Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
4. Dr. Sumera Saleem Daughter Of Shri Abdul Saleem, Aged
About 32 Years, Resident Of 8/8, Saraswati Colony, Line
Police Road, Baran Road, Kota (Raj.)
5. Dr. Lajwanti Daughter Of Shri Nehru Lal, Aged About 27
Years, Resident Of Village And Post Bhajoli, Tehsil
Makrana, District Nagaur (Raj.)
6. Dr. Manisha Daughter Of Shri Inderpal, Aged About 26
Years, Resident Of First Floor, Choudhary Library, Near
M.d.s. Sr. Secondary School, Tehsil Rawatsar, District
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
7. Dr. Sharda Daughter Of Shri Subhash Bhidasar, Aged
About 35 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Budhwaliya,
Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
8. Dr. Santosh Kumar Nagar Son Of Shri Durga Lal Nagar,
Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of 197-E, R.k. Puram,
Kota (Raj.)
9. Dr. Hariom Son Of Shri Sumer Singh, Resident Of Keshav
Nagar, Near Rto Office, Bharatpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Special Secretary,
Medical Health And Family Welfare Department, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director, National Health Mission, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Additional Director (Administration), Department Of
Medical And Health Service, Rajasthan, Medical
(Downloaded on 15/10/2020 at 09:22:57 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-12024/2020]
Directorate, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General
with Mr. Siddharth Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
15/10/2020
The case of the petitioners is that where all those who are
holding Degree of BDS are covered by the law as laid down by this
court in the case of Raghvendra Agarwal & Others Versus The
State of Rajasthan & Others; SBCWP No.10342/2020 and other
connected writ petitions decided on 01.10.2020, wherein this court
has held as under:-
"(20) In the opinion of this Court, a judicial
review of an advertisement issued by the State would
be limited to the aspect
as to whether the said advertisement issued by the
authority is in accordance with the rules laid down by
the concerned State authority or the appointing
authority.
(21) Thus, while examining the advertisement
dated 31/08/2020 and the qualifications laid down
there under for appointment as CHO, the guidelines
laid down by the National Health Mission would have
to be looked into.
(22) While learned counsel for the petitioners
have pointed out that in the National Health Policy of 2017, it was provided that for the post of Mid Level Health Provider AYUSH doctors can be considered, it appears that a departure has been made by the appointing authority while issuing the Latest Operational Guidelines under the 'AYUSHMAN BHARAT' of National Health Mission and as noted above, under Section 4, the qualifications laid down for CHO have been limited to B.Sc. in Community Health or Nurse (Downloaded on 15/10/2020 at 09:22:57 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-12024/2020] (GNM or B.Sc.) or Ayurveda Practitioner (BAMS) trained and certification. Thus, the second condition of being duly registered with the concerned council, the non-inclusion of BHMS qualification or other qualifications in related health subjects under sub- section 4 is not under challenge before this Court.
(23) In view of above, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 could not and would not add some new qualifications for the post of CHO at the askance of the petitioners. (24) Neither this Court is having the infrastructure nor the jurisdiction to examine as to what can be the exact qualification for a particular post.
(25)................
(26)................
(27)................
(28) Keeping in view above, all these writ petitions claiming equivalence and consideration for participation in the selection process are found to be devoid of merit and the same are accordingly dismissed. No costs."
Keeping in view the above, the petitioners' case for participation in the selection process for appointment on the post of Community Health Officer is not made out. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Karan Bhutani /531/224 (Downloaded on 15/10/2020 at 09:22:57 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)