[2025:RJ-JP:3858] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1442/2025 Lokesh Kumar S/o Kishan Gopal Khandelwal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Plot No B-85, Govind Nagar, 11-B Niwaru Road Jothwara, Jaipur. ----Petitioner 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 In Charge, Kherli, Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Saugath Roy, Adv. & Mr. Jag Mohan Pareek, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/01/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was 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. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now services of the petitioner 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 [2025:RJ-JP:3858] (2 of 3) [CW-1442/2025] may be issued to the respondents to continue the services of the petitioner as Nursing Officer on the said post against the vacant post in District Alwar or any other district where the post 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 within a stipulated time. So similar order may be passed in the instant case also. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that the contractual appointment was awarded to the petitioner for a particular term or till availability of the regularly selected candidates. Counsel submits that now regularly selected candidates have been given appointment, hence in these circumstances, the respondents have terminated the services of the petitioner. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any indulgence. 4. Heard considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record. 5. As per the contentions made by counsel for the petitioner 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- [2025:RJ-JP:3858] (3 of 3) [CW-1442/2025] authorities have been further directed to consider their representations in accordance with law in a particular time. 6. In these similar circumstances, the same prayer has been made by counsel for the petitioner. 7. In view of the above, instant petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation with regard to redressal of his grievance before the respondents-authorities, in case, the representation is submitted by the petitioner 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 three weeks thereafter. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed of. 9. Stay application and all other pending application(s) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Mohita /16