RAJESH CHOUDHARY SON OF SHRI HARPHOOL SINGH v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CW/16529/2025 · 2025-10-30
Ashok Kumar Jain
Transfer Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 45539 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 45539 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:43640] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16529/2025
1. Rajesh Choudhary Son Of Shri Harphool Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village Piprali, District Sikar, (Raj.).
2. Pravin Singh Chouhan Son Of Shri Dhule Singh Chouhan, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Mukam Noliyawara, Post Dhangaon, Tehsil Chikhali, Distric Dungarpur, (Raj.).
3. Rakesh Kumar Patel Son Of Shri Lal Chand Patel, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village Post Sarera, Tehsil Nayagoan, District Udaipur, (Raj.).
4. Santosh Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Om Prakash Haldenia, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Village Manota Kalan, Tehsil Nagar, District Bharatpur, (Raj.).
5. Ramchandra Son Of Shri Premchand, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Village Kodesar, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu, (Raj.).
6. Krishan Kumar Son Of Shri Rangrav, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Village Tinkikuri, Tehsil Sheopur, District Alwar, (Raj.).
7. Pradeep Panchal Son Of Shri Jayantilal Panchal, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Near Bus Stand, Village Sajjan Garh, District Banswara, (Raj.).
8. Sangeeta Patel Daughter Of Shri Ram Lal Patel Wife Of Shri Prakash Chandra Patel, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Village Kojawara, Upla Fala, Tehsil Rishabhdev, District Udaipur, (Raj.).
9. Rajbahadur Son Of Shri Tara Chand, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village Tinki Rudi, Tehsil Mundawar, Shyopur, District Alwar, (Raj.).
10. Shiv Ram Singh Son Of Shri Kalu Ram, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Village Vpo Bhankari, Vaya Rajnota, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur At Present District Kotputali Behror, (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Medial And Health And Family Welfare
[2025:RJ-JP:43640] (2 of 5) [CW-16529/2025] Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Directorate, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The Additional Director, (Administration), Medical And Health Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. The Mission Director (Nhm) Directorate Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. The Additional Mission Director (Nhm) Directorate Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)
6. The Project Director (Nhm) Directorate Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Order 30/10/2025
1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioners with following prayers:
“It is, therefore, requested that Your Lordship would be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction Quash and set aside the action of the respondents in reducing the number of posts
of
Nurse
Grade-Ii (GNM) from 6172 to 3704, being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
[2025:RJ-JP:43640] (3 of 5) [CW-16529/2025] and Direct the respondents to consider and
fill
up
all
6172 posts of Nurse Grade-II (GNM) as advertised 08.08.2007, including the remaining 2500 posts which were arbitrarily reduced; and Direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners, who are duly qualified and had participated in counselling, for appointment against the posts of Nurse Grade-II (GNM), strictly in accordance with
law
or
may
kindly be pleased to decide the writ petition in the light of case of D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 414/2019, titled as State of Raj.
and
Ors.
Versus Suresh Kumar and Ors. decided on 15.09.2025 by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court Jaodhpur in the larger interest of justice. ii. Any other order direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. iii. Cost of writ petition also may kindly be awarded in favour of petitioners.”
2.
Learned counsel for petitioners while referring and relying upon judgment dated 19.12.2018 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14497/2017 Suresh Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. submits that the controversy and the issue raised herein is already settled by a Co-
[2025:RJ-JP:43640] (4 of 5) [CW-16529/2025] ordinate Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur and judgment is approved by Hon’ble Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.414/2019 State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Suresh Kumar and Ors. on 15.09.2025. He further submitted that instant writ petition be disposed of in accordance with judgment dated 19.12.2018 and affirmed on 15.09.2025.
3. Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC accepts notice. He submits that the petition be disposed of on basis of aforementioned judgments.
4. In view of submission of the counsels, the writ petition may be disposed of in light of judgment dated 19.12.2018 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14497/2017 and partly modified on dated 15.09.2025 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.414/2019 by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur.
5. Considered the grievance raised herein, the petitioners are given a liberty to submit a representation to the respondents-Authority within a period of 30 days raising all grounds and the respondents-Authority are directed to decide the representation in light of ratio laid down in case referred hereinabove with a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 30 days from date of receipt of representation. After passing the order, the respondents are under an obligation to communicate the decision to the petitioners either by way of speed post or through E-mail, if petitioners have provided E-mail in their representation. If
[2025:RJ-JP:43640] (5 of 5) [CW-16529/2025] the petitioners are still aggrieved, they have a liberty to approach this Court with fresh petition.
6. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition with pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /326