[2026:RJ-JP:8362] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2810/2026 Dr. Nikita Kumari D/o Deepak Kumar Gupta, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Flat No. 744, Block 7, Arrah Garden Residences, Arrah Garden Road, Rukanpura, B. V. College, Patna, Bihar - 800014 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Medical Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Raj. 2. The Commissioner, Department Of Medical Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Chikitsa Siksha Bhawan, Near Pink Square Mall, Govind Marg, Jaipur, Raj. 3. The Chairman, Dm / Mch / Ms / Md / Other Candidates Allotment Board - 2026, S. M. S. Medical College, Jaipur, Raj. 4. The Principal, S. M. S. Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 5. The Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (AI- IMS), Phulwari Sharif, Patna, Bihar - 801507 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh For Respondent(s) : Ms. Tanvisha Pant for Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 23/02/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the peti- tioner with the following prayers:- “ In these circumstances, it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to accept this writ peti- tion and; I. the Respondents be directed to release the originals documents of petitioner, forthwith, upon an undertaking to serve the Service Bond period after completion of her SRship tenure at AIIMS, Patna. [2026:RJ-JP:8362] (2 of 6) [CW-2810/2026] II. Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and cir- cumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the Petitioner.” 2. Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset has relied upon interim orders passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18011/2025 titled as Dr. Harshpreet Kour Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others dated 10.02.2026 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19839/2025 titled as Dr. Yash Vardhan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others dated 16.02.2026. Relevant portion of the order passed in the case of Dr. Yash Vardhan (supra) reads as under:- “18. It is a matter of fact that no reply to the appli- cation under consideration or counter to the additional af- fidavit has been filed by the State. It is not in dispute that the order which provides for submission of bank guarantee by the petitioners equiva- lent to the amount of service bond has been issued by the State of Rajasthan on 28.01.2026 and thus, there was no occasion whatsoever for any candidate to presume or ap- prehend imposition of any such condition prior to the said order coming into effect. 19. It is also a matter of record that prior to issuance of circular dated 28.01.2026, the circular dated 01.04.2025 was holding its field. Clause 15 of the circular dated 01.04.2025 reads as under:- “15. यदद कोई छात दकसी Institute of National Importance (AIIMS, PGI, JIPMER) मे Fellowship फे दलए चयदनत होता है तो उसे भी Fellowships उपरान 2 वरर की राज मे राजकीय सेवा देने की शतर पर ही अनुमदत दी जायेगी।" And, Clause 15 of the circular dated 28.01.2026 reads as under:- “15. यदद कोई अभरर सातकोतर अरवा सुपर सेदशयदलटी पाठकम पूरर करने के उपरांत दकसी ' इंसीटूट ऑफ नेशनल इमॉटस' (Any AIIMS/ PGI Chandigarh, JIPMER) तरा अन 'इंसीटूट ऑफ नेशनल इमॉटस' संसान) मे सीदनयर रेजीडेनी हेतु चयदनत होता है, तो उसे राज सरकार / संसान दारा बांड रादश के समतुल बैक गारंटी जमा कराने पर अनुमदत दी जा सके गी।” [2026:RJ-JP:8362] (3 of 6) [CW-2810/2026] Clause 15 of both these circulars deals with the situ- ation where a candidate is willing to join an INI. 20. Though, the respondents seriously dispute the appli- cability of Clause 15 of the circular dated 01.04.2025 upon SR-ship on the ground that the word used in Clause 15 of the circular dated 01.04.2025 is “Fellowship” and not “SR-ship”, this Court in the case of Dr. Rohit Yadav (supra) considered the issue of SR-ship has duly referred to the order dated 01.04.2025 and has held as under:- “16. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, taking note of the judg- ments cited at Bar and upon assiduous perusal of the records, this Court has made the following observa- tions: 16.1 That PGIMER Chandigarh is an Institute of National Importance. 16.2 That the RNT college, Udaipur upon an undertaking released the original documents of the pe- titioner. 16.3 That the respondent No.3 has not re- leased the provisional degree and NOC of the peti- tioner. 16.4 That the circular dated 01.04.2025 is- sued by the Secretary permits the candidate for pursu- ing program/service in an Institute of National Impor- tance for the respective period and thereafter complet- ing remaining years of service as per Bond condition. 17. While placing reliance upon Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has expressed his willingness to serve as a Senior Resident with the State for the remaining period, this Court in the interest of justice deems it apposite to allow the present petition with the following directions: 17.1 Provisional degree of the petitioner be released along with NOC and requisite documents, if any. 17.2 An undertaking in pursuance to the dic- tum passed in judgment Dr. Nishant Gopal (Supra), as on date be furnished to the State Government as- suring compliance of the remaining Bond period in fu- ture. 17.3 PGIMER Chandigarh to permit the peti- tioner to continue on the post of Senior Resident with- out any break. 17.4 Respondent No.3 is directed to release requisite documents and NOC in favor of PGI Chandi- garh.” Thus, it is not open for the respondents to argue that the Clause 15 of the circular dated 01.04.2025 will not apply on a candidate willing to join an INI for SR-ship. 21. Now, comparing Clause 15 of both the circulars i.e., circular dated 01.04.2025 and circular dated 28.01.2026, it is evident that the circular dated 28.01.2026 imposes an onerous condition upon the candidates of furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of service bond. As the said circular came into effect only on 28.01.2026 [2026:RJ-JP:8362] (4 of 6) [CW-2810/2026] and the applicant/petitioner No.2 has applied at AIIMS, Delhi for SR-ship in pursuance to an Advertisement dated 20.11.2025, which was issued much prior to issuance of the circular dated 28.01.2026 and even the online appli- cation form was filled on 01.12.2025 in pursuance to which, the examination was held on 03.01.2026, result of which was declared on 09.01.2026 and even the inter- view was held on 20.01.2026, this Court has no hesita- tion in holding that the applicant/petitioner No.2 would stand governed by circular dated 01.04.2025 and circular dated 28.01.2026 cannot be applied retrospectively upon the applicant/petitioner No.2 herein. It is more than set- tled that a circular cannot be applied retrospectively, more so to the detriment of a candidate who has already participated in the recruitment process on the basis of a circular which was existing on the date of commencement of the recruitment process. 22. It is also well established that a recruitment process commences with date of issuance of the Advertisement for recruitment. Applying the circular dated 28.01.2026 upon a recruitment process which has already com- menced by issuance of the Advertisement on 20.11.2025 would tantamount to altering the rules of the game mid- way and that too, without any rationale, transparency or justification.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case as well, all the crucial and relevant events have taken place much prior to the issuance of the circular dated 28.01.2026 by the State, viz. i) Issuance of advertisement by AIIMS, Patna on 18.12.2025. ii) Date of online Application dated 09.01.2026; iii) Holding of examination dated 25.01.2026; iv) Declaration of result of examination dated 27.01.2026. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in pursuance to the aforementioned advertisement, the petitioner has received an appointment memorandum dated 05.02.2026 and is required to report at AIIMS-Patna within fifteen days from the date of issuance of the said appointment memorandum along with [2026:RJ-JP:8362] (5 of 6) [CW-2810/2026] all of her original documents. Thus, considering the fact that all the relevant events have taken place prior to the issuance of the circular dated 28.01.2026, the present writ petition be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent could not dispute the factum of the relevant events mentioned above taking place prior to the issuance of the circular dated 28.01.2026 and also the fac- tum of interim orders passed by this Court in the case of Dr. Harshpreet Kour (supra) and Dr. Yash Vardhan (supra). 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Considering the facts obtained, more particularly the fact that the crucial and relevant events mentioned above have taken place prior to the issuance of circular dated 28.01.2026, which stands corroborated from the perusal of the advertisement dated 18.12.2025, issued by AIIMS-Patna, and the memorandum of ap- pointment dated 05.02.2026, issued to the petitioner granting ap- pointment to the Post of Senior Resident and taking guidance from the interim orders passed by this Court on 10.02.2026 and 16.02.2026, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed, though to the limited extent of release of petitioner’s original documents. 8. As the petitioner has qualified the written examination of AI- IMS-Patna, which is an INI and has been called to report at the said institute for SR-ship along with her original documents, the respondents are directed to release the original documents of the petitioner, immediately on furnishing of an undertaking by the pe- titioner to the effect that she would serve the State Government for the period as stipulated in the bond executed and submitted by [2026:RJ-JP:8362] (6 of 6) [CW-2810/2026] her after completion of the tenure of her SR-ship at AIIMS-Patna. The undertaking would also state that in the event of she failing to serve the State Government, she would pay the amount to the State Government as mentioned in the bond. 9. As the petitioner has duly submitted her willingness to fur- nish the undertaking and even the learned counsel for the peti- tioner has made the said submission at bar, a copy of the under- taking so furnished by the petitioner be also filed before this Court and be made part of the record so as to ensure that the conditions stipulated in the undertaking are duly adhered to by the petitioner. The undertaking is to be filed before this Court within one week of furnishing of the same with the State Government. 10. It is also clarified that the said directions for release of docu- ments are being issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, more particularly considering the fact that the petitioner has been granted SR-ship at AIIMS-Patna, which is an INI. 11. In case, if she fails to join AIIMS-Patna, she would be mandatorily required to handover the original documents to the State Government within a period of seven days from the said re- jection/non-joining of the petitioner. 12. With the above directions, the writ petition as well as pend- ing application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DIPESH CHAYAL /173