[2025:RJ-JP:36528] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13707/2025 Dr. Krishna Charpota D/o Shri Gautam Lal Charpota, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Manjiya, Post Nahil, Teh. Arthuna, District Banswara, At Present Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Medical Health And Family Welfare Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur-302005 2. Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Through Its Registrar/ Convener, Medical Officer (Medical), Recruitment Examination-2024, Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Sector-18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur-302033 3. Director, Medical Health And Family Welfare Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, A-2, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, C-Scheme, Behind Government Secretariat, Jaipur-302005. 4. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Dungarpur, Near City Referral Old Hospital, Chamanpura, Dungarpur-314001 5. Principal, R.N.T., Medical College, Court Chowk, Udaipur- 313001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Soni with Mr. Nitin Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Mr. Prakhar Jain Mr. Yash Joshi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 10/09/2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the instant matter is squarely covered by the dictum enunciated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.61/2025 titled as Dr. Prateek Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2025:RJ-JP:36528] (2 of 2) [CW-13707/2025] Further, while placing reliance upon Circular of Finance dated 22.02.2021 and DoPT dated 24.03.2022, pertaining to the sanction of extraordinary leave, it is submitted that petitioner has filed a legal notice for demand of justice on 01.09.2025. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner ought to be granted extraordinary leave in light of the Dr. Prateek Verma(supra). Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that when the petitioner is not rendering services or working in the State service then as per Rule 110-112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules 1951, study leave is not admissible to the said person. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court directs the Director, Medical and Health/CMHO, to consider the representation/application of the petitioner, addressed in Annexure-20, in light of the Circulars and Dr. Prateek Verma(supra), strictly in accordance with law. Needful be done within a period of fortnight from passing of the present order. The directions passed herein shall be made applicable mutatis mutandis on all the petition. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /37