[2025:RJ-JP:18054-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 350/2025 1. Dr. Prabhu Dayal Son of Shri Daya Ram, Aged About 42 Years, Resident of 201, Mangalam Aashiyana, Ward No. 19, Salasar Road, Sikar (Rajasthan) Presently Working As Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Garinda, Sikar (Raj.) 2. Dr. Geeta Samota Wife of Shri Prabhu Dayal, Aged About 37 Years, Resident of 201, Mangalam Aashiyana, Ward No. 19, Salasar Road, Sikar (Rajasthan), Presently Working As Medical Officer (Gynecology) Sub District Hospital, Fathepur, Dist. Sikar (Raj.) ----Appellants Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Director, Department Of Medical And Health, Government Of Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur, Rajasthan 3. Chairman, M.d./m.s/d.m./m.ch./ Candidates Allotment Board- 2025, Sms Medical College, Jln Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aslam Khan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 29/04/2025 Aggrieved by the order dated 7th April 2025 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.5355/2025, the appellants who are seeking allotment of seat for appointment as Senior Resident has approached this Court. [2025:RJ-JP:18054-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-350/2025] 2. By this order, interim relief to the appellants has been declined. 3. The appellants claimed that they completed P.G. course in the year 2017 and 2018 but they are put to disadvantageous position by virtue of Sub-Clause 3 to Para (1) in the Instruction Booklet for D.M./M.Ch/M.D./M.S. (for completion of service bond) candidate’s allotment to serve State Government for applicable duration which reads as under:- “3. All candidates not covered at serial 1 and 2 above and eligible to pursue SR ship will be allowed on the seats of Senior Residency remaining vacant (after allotment to 2021 batch candidates), at the level of Principal of the concerned college. Entire allotment process of such other candidates will be carried out at the level of Principal of the concerned college only. All concerned candidates are required to get in touch with the concerned college for the same.” 4. Mr. Aslam Khan, the learned counsel for the appellants referring to the decisions in S. Krishna Sradha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others: (2020) 17 SCC 465 and Ramnaresh Alias Rinku Kushwah and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others: (2024) SCC Online SC 2058, submits that as per the Constitutional Scheme merit cannot be compromised and the provision contain in Sub-Clause 3 to Para(1) of the Instruction Booklet is clearly violative of the constitutional mandate. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the writ Court did not consider the issue germane to the contentious issue raised by the petitioners and dismissed the stay application observing as under:- “10. This Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent-State to proceed further in accordance with the law and instructions Booklet (Annexure-10) to balance out the remedy qua the petitioner in terms of condition No.3 which reads as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:18054-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-350/2025] “3. All candidates not covered at serial 1 and 2 above and eligible to pursue SR ship will be allowed on the seats of Senior Residency remaining vacant (after allotment to 2021 batch candidates), at the level of Principal of the concerned college. Entire allotment process of such other candidates will be carried out at the level of Principal of the concerned college only. All concerned candidates are required to get in touch with the concerned college for the same.” 11. Additionally, it is directed to the respondents to accept manual application of the petitioners and if any seats are left after accepting 2021 batch candidates, giving a sympathetic consideration, the petitioners candidates may be considered by the concerned Principal.” 6. To begin with, we would indicate that the interim prayer by the petitioners in the writ petition did not touch the legality/illegality of Sub-Clause 3 and it was formulated in the following manner:- “1. That the petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned action of respondents, whereby the respondents have not allowed the petitioners to participate in the process of allotment of seats of Senior Resident despite of their eligibility. 2. That the facts and grounds mentioned in the writ petition may be treated as part and parcel of the present Stay Application. 3. Petitioner submit that from the facts and grounds mentioned in the writ petition, petitioner has made out a strong prima-facie case in his favour and balance of convenience also lies in favour of the petitioner and if the interim relief as prayed for has not been granted to the petitioner, they will suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money.” 7. While no prayer has been made seeking stay of the operation and implementation of Sub-Clause 3, the interim prayer made by the appellants could not have been granted by the Writ Court. In our opinion, the writ Court considered the matter in the right perspective and passed the impugned order dated 7th April 2025 which does not require any interference by this Court. We are fortified in our opinion also for the reason that if the operation and [2025:RJ-JP:18054-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-350/2025] implementation of Sub-Rule is not stayed, it is necessary that the provisions under Sub-Clauses 1 and 2 are enforced. While the writ petition is yet to be decided on merits, we may also indicate that the decisions in “S. Krishna Sradha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others & Ramnaresh Alias Rinku Kushwah and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others” do not touch upon the matter at the interim stage. 8. In view of the above, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 350/2025 is dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J HEENA/MAHIMA/190