HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 825/2025 1. Bheem Singh Dhanka S/o Shri Kabul Ram Dhanka, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Shyanpura Jagir, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar. 2. Manish Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ramavatar Shrama, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Duhar-Chouhan Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar. 3. Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Narsi Ram Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Duhar-Chouhan Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar. 4. Manesh Saini S/o Shri Umesh Kumar Saini, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Nolakha Ki Dhani, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar. 5. Poonam W/o Niranjan Lal Jat, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 209 Palasaniyo Ki Dhani, Bahram Ka Bas, Alwar. All Were Working As Nursing Officer Under Block, Chc Thanagazi, Under Chief Medical And Health Officer, Thanagazi, Alwar ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health Services, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. The Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical, Health And Family Welfare Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur (Raj.). 3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Alwar. 4. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Block CHC, Thanagazi, Alwar. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 889/2025 1. Nireeta W/o Shri Shakti Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Arroowa, Tehsil Kathumar, Alwar. 2. Neeraj Kumari W/o Shri Naresh Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Kankroli, Post Isrota Tehsil Kathumar, (2 of 5) [CW-825/2025] Alwar. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health Services, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. The Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical, Health And Family Welfare Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Alwar. 4. Medical Officer In-Charge, Community Health Centre, Kathumar, Alwar. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 890/2025 1. Seema Kuntal W/o Shri Narendra, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Manota Kalan, Tehsil Nagar, District Bharatpur. 2. Rajni Kumari W/o Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Gandoora, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Alwar. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health Services, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. The Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical, Health And Family Welfare Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Alwar. 4. Block Chief Medical Officer, Laxmangarh, Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Saugath Roy with Mr. Jag Mohan Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC (3 of 5) [CW-825/2025] JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 05/02/2025 1. Since common question of facts and law is involved in all these three petitions, hence with the consent of counsel for the parties, matters are taken up for final disposal and are being decided by this common order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed as Nursing Officer on Urgent Temporary Basis under Rule 27 of Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1965 for a particular term subject to availability of regularly selected candidates. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that now services of the petitioners have been terminated by the respondents after receipt of the regularly selected candidates in the department. Some post of Nursing Officers are still lying vacant. So, a direction may be issued to the respondents to continue the services of the petitioners as Nursing Officer on the said post against the vacant post in District Alwar or any other district where the posts are lying vacant. Learned counsel submits that under the similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Prajapat and Others Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20441/2024 has granted liberty to the co-petitioners to file a representation before the authorities and the authorities have been directed to consider the same and decide the same (4 of 5) [CW-825/2025] within a stipulated time. So, similar order may be passed in the instant case also. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that the contractual appointment was awarded to the petitioners for a particular term or till availability of the regularly selected candidates. Counsel submits that now regularly selected candidates have been given appointment, hence under these circumstances, the respondents have terminated the services of the petitioners. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to get any indulgence. 5. Heard considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record. 6. As per the contentions made by counsel for the petitioners that even after selection of the regularly selected candidates still some post are lying vacant with the respondents and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Prajapat (supra) has granted liberty to the co- petitioners to file representation before the respondents- authorities and the respondents-authorities have been further directed to consider their representations in accordance with law in a particular time, thus, under these similar circumstances, the same prayer has been made by counsel for the petitioners. 7. In view of the above, all the instant writ petitions stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to submit representation with regard to redressal of their grievance before the respondents-authorities. (5 of 5) [CW-825/2025] 8. In case, representation is submitted by the petitioners within a period of one week from today, it is expected from the respondents to decide the same in accordance with law within a period of two weeks thereafter. 9. Stay applications and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/48-50