Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32900 (RAJ)

KAMLESH DEVI W/O SHRI LAXMAN SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/17920/2022 · 2025-03-25

Anoop Kumar Dhand

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17920/2022 Kamlesh Devi W/o Shri Laxman Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Shajahanpur, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Cheif Medical And Health Officer, Alwar. 4. Block Chief Medical Officer, Shajahanpur, District Alwar. 5. Medical Officer In-Charge, Community Health Center, Shajahanpur, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Berwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakhar Jain for Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 25/03/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 23.09.2022, by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated by the respondents by treating the post, held by the petitioner, as ‘deleted’ by the State Government. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Lab Cleaner and all of sudden her services were terminated by the respondents by treating this post deleted vide impugned order dated 23.09.2022. Counsel submits that the petitioner sought certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the respondents, wherein, an (2 of 2) [CW-17920/2022] information has been provided to her that the post of Lab Cleaner is still lying with the department and the same has not been deleted. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the respondents is not tenable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents-State opposed the prayer, but he is not in position to controvert the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Considering the above arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and without going into the merits and demerits of the matter, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the State-authorities along with the RTI information dated 15.01.2023. 5. In case, such representation is submitted by the petitioner within a period of one month from today, it is expected from the respondents to decide the said representation of the petitioner expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months thereafter. 6. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not passed any order or direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in a particular way. The respondents would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. 7. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand dispose of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/34