HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18015/2025 1. Dr. Paras Dangi S/o Hari Ram Dangi, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 15, Parivahan Nagar, Near Jharkhand Mode, Khatipura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302012. 2. Dr. Deepak Gurjar S/o Shribhan Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village And Post Madauli, Tehsil Rupbas, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan- 321402. 3. Dr. Krishan Kumar Bansal S/o Dinesh Kumar Bansal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 43, Mukesh Nursary, Malviya Nagar, Alwar, Rajasthan- 301001. 4. Dr. Sita Choudhary S/o Bhava Ram Choudhary, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Tripoliya Gate, Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302029. 5. Dr. Anil Lohar S/o Bholi Ram Lohar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 785-E Block, Vaishali Nagar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302021. 6. Dr. Uttam Patidar S/o Harivallabh Patidar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Plot No.1, Ganesh Colony, Khatipura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302012. 7. Dr. Sumant Kansara S/o Devendra Kansara, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 9/124, Chitrakoot Nagar, Behind Akshardham Temple, District Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302021. 8. Dr. Gajendra S/o Khuma Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o C-91, Hanuman Nagar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302029. 9. Dr. Amandeep S/o Jaswant Singh Bhambhu, Aged About 27 Years, R/o C-378, 4C Scheme, Macheda, Jamna Puri, District Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302013. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Rajasthan Govt. Jaipur. 2. The Chairman, Neet Pg Admission/ Counselling Board- 2025, Sms Medical College, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. The Convener, Neet Pg Examination, National Board Of Examination, Medical Enclave, Ansari Nagar, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Ring Road, New Delhi - 110029. (2 of 7) [CW-18015/2025] ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendar Neel with Mr. Amogh Gupta and Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathor For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yash Joshi for Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG Mr. C.S. Sinha Mr. Ajay Shukla with Mr. Raghav Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 18/12/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “In these circumstances, it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court will be pleased to accept this writ petition and:- (i) the impugned condition of Clause 3 of Part A of instruction booklet stating ‘Only regular in- service candidates will be considered for Post MBBS DNB and Post MBBS Diploma. Candidates working on UTB will not be eligible’ may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and same may kindly be quashed and set aside; (i)(a) the impugned criteria no.2 of clause no.4 of impugned letter dated 14.08.2025 may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and same may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) The respondents may kindly be directed by issuing appropriate, writ, order or direction in the nature thereof: (a) to consider Medical Officers (UTB) including humble petitioners eligible for Post MBBS DNB and Post MBB Diploma courses; (b) to allot Post MBBS DNB and Post MBB Diploma courses to humble petitioners with all consequential benefits, if they are otherwise eligible and falling in merit. (iii) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts (3 of 7) [CW-18015/2025] and circumstances of this case may also be passed in favour of the Petitioner.” 2. That the facts in brief leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioners were working as Medical Officers (Urgent Temporary Basis) in rural areas, thereby making them eligible for 10%, 20% and 30% (as the case may be) bonus marks in State Medical PG seats (MD/MS), Post MBBS DNB or Post MBBS Diploma seats. The information booklet for State Medical PG seats (MD/MS) /Post MBBS DNB/Post MBBS Diploma allotment, 2025, issued by the respondent while prescribing the eligibility of the candidates, further provides that for in-service category, weightage of bonus marks in the obtained NEET PG, 2025 score shall be given to all eligible in-service candidates, though with the caveat that only regular in-service candidates will be considered for Post MBBS DNB/Post MBBS Diploma and the candidates working on UTB will not be eligible. It is this condition, aggrieved by which, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. 3. Primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no reasonable justification for the respondents to not to consider the petitioners who are working on Urgent Temporary Basis as in-service candidates and consequently, deny them the benefit as is available to in-service candidates, who have been regularly appointed. 4. Learned counsel submits that there is no logical rationale that on one hand the respondents are considering the petitioners eligible for PG course, which is a more comprehensive course and on the other hand, not considering them eligible for Post MBBS (4 of 7) [CW-18015/2025] DNB/Post MBBS Diploma course. Learned counsel further submits that the exclusion of candidates working on Urgent Temporary Basis has come in effect only from the year 2025 and till 2024, they were considered eligible and thus, there is no justification for the respondents to deny the benefit to them. Learned counsel further submits that when the eligibility criteria is same for all the three courses, there is no rationale for the respondents to exclude the petitioner from being considered eligible for Post MBBS DNB/Post MBBS Diploma course solely on the ground of their nature of appointment. Accordingly, it is prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the petitioners as regular in-service candidates and hence, be considered eligible for Post MBBS DNB/Post MBBS Diploma course. 5. Per contra, Mr. Ajay Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-National Board of Examination, submits that the exclusion of the petitioner from in-service category on the ground of them being appointed on contractual basis is a policy decision, which is continuing since long and it is incorrect to say that it is only in the year 2025 that the petitioners have been so excluded. 6. Learned counsel submits that since the petitioners are working on Urgent Temporary Basis and are purely contractual employees, thus, they cannot be considered under the category of in-service candidates. 7. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hemant Kumar Verma and Others Vs. Employee State Insurance Corporation and (5 of 7) [CW-18015/2025] Others reported in 2022 (20) SCC 376. Relevant extract of the said judgment read as under:- “6. The contention of the petitioners is two-fold. One, the junior residents are ‘in- service’ doctors. They must thus be treated on parity with IMO-II doctors for the provision of reservation benefits. The qualification, entitlement, duties, responsibilities, and pay scale of the junior residents and IMO-II doctors are the same. The only difference between the two categories is the mode of appointment. While the junior residents are appointed directly because of the bond that they are serving, the IMO-II doctors are appointed through a selection process. Two, junior residents are eligible for 50% reservation in respondent institutions on institutional preference. The Courts have recognized reservation through institutional preference in post-Graduate medical education in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 146 and Yatin Kuma Jasubahi v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 1. ……… 8. On 2 February 2018, the revised ESIC Residency Scheme for UG pass-outs was issued. The scheme provides that the duties and responsibilities of the junior residents will be fixed by the competent authority. It mentions that “they will be required to perform such work as may be needed in the legitimate interest of patient care in ESI health system (ESIS/ESIC) including Hospitals and dispensaries anywhere in India.” The memorandum further states that the pay structure for the junior residents is similar to the scale for the junior residents under the Central Residency Scheme. The IMO-II doctors are governed by the ESIC Staff and Condition of Service Regulations 1959. The crucial difference between junior residents and IMO- II is that while the former is a contractual post where the doctors are employed directly due to the bond condition on the completion of the MBBS degree, the latter is a permanent post. Therefore, the mode of appointment and tenure of the posts vary. The IMO-IIs’ who pursue their post graduate education as in-service candidates will serve the respondent institution after completion of their post- (6 of 7) [CW-18015/2025] graduate course. However, in the case of junior residents, since they are contractual employees who are serving the bond, they are not bound to serve the respondent- institution after the completion of their post-graduate studies. The reservation for in-service candidates is an incentive and an added benefit to the IMO-II doctors who will be serving in the respondent-institution till superannuation. In such circumstances, the argument of the petitioners that the junior residents and IMO-II doctors are at par with each other for the former to be treated as “in-service” doctors does not hold merit.” 8. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.3822/2023 titled as Dr. Sandeep Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others decided on 05.07.2023, wherein, while dealing with a similar controversy, the benefit was denied to the petitioners as they were working on a Temporary Basis. 9. Learned counsel has further referred to an order dated 04.11.2025 issued by National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences, vide which, one such similarly situated candidate whose service was contractual in nature was, though initially allotted the seat for pursuing the diploma course, however, subsequently, his admission was cancelled. 10. Learned counsel also submits that similar request as made by the petitioners herein, was also made to the Board by the State of Maharashtra, which was rejected by the Board. Hence, it was prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record along with judgments relied upon. (7 of 7) [CW-18015/2025] 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the very factum that permanency of post is the edifice of the entire benefit, the eligibility of the petitioner falls short of the said mandatory condition as their appointment is solely on contractual basis. Once permanency of post is the criteria for grant of benefit, the petitioners who have been appointed on contractual basis cannot claim parity with the regularly selected in-service candidates. The said aspect has been duly considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hemant Kumar Verma (supra) and also by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dr. Sandeep (supra). The justification for excluding the candidates appointed on Urgent Temporary Basis from the said benefit is quite apparent, where it is the permanency of the post, which is required for making them entitled for the said benefit, which the petitioner certainly lacks. 13. Further, the said decision to not to consider the candidates appointed as UTB as in-service candidates is a policy decision which can be made subject to judicial review only in the event of the said policy being palpably arbitrary or violative of the Constitution or statutory provisions, which is not even the case of the petitioner herein and thus, no interference in the said policy is warranted. 14. Considering the above circumstances, the prayers as sought in the writ petition deserves to be rejected and consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. 15. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J Jayant Kumar/148