[2026:RJ-JP:571] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15334/2021 Nitin Prakash Sharma S/o Sh. Ved Prakash Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Shiv Shankar Colony, Near Govt. Pg College, Ka- rauli (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Sec- retary, Medical And Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. The Director, Medical And Health, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshit Gupta with Ms. Pragya Seth, Mr. Nakul Bansal and Mr. Shreyansh Dhariwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Ms. Sweekriti Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment / Order 08/01/2026 1 Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner with following prayer: “In these circumstances, it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept this writ petition and i) the impugned act of the Respondents in not giving posting to the humble Petitioner vide order dated 05.10.2021 and impugned act of the Respondents in verbally rejecting the candidature of the humble Petitioner for appointment on the post of Nurse Gr. II may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and therefore, same may kindly be quashed and set [2026:RJ-JP:571] (2 of 3) [CW-15334/2021] aside. ii) by issuing the writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature thereof respondents may kindly be directed to treat petitioner as eligible under Outstanding Sportsman quota and to appoint humble Petitioner on the post of Nurse Gr. II with all consequential benefits; iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the Petitioners.” 2 Learned counsel for petitioner while referring and relying upon judgment dated 15.12.2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 234/2025 titled as Sumitra Runla and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. submits that the controversy and the issue raised herein is already settled by this Hon’ble Court, after considering Government policy and other decided cases. He further submitted that instant writ petition be disposed of in accordance with aforesaid order. 3 Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and also material placed on record, the writ petition may be disposed in light of Sumitra Runla and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (supra). 4 Considered the grievance raised herein, the petitioner is 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 consider and decide the representation in light of ratio laid down in case of Sumitra Runla and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (supra), but in case of deviation with [2026:RJ-JP:571] (3 of 3) [CW-15334/2021] a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 30 days from date of receipt of representation. After the decision, the respondents are under an obligation to communicate the order to the petitioner either by way of speed post or through E-mail, if petitioner has provided E-mail in his representation. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, he has a liberty to approach this Court with fresh petition. 5 Needless to say that if the petitioner is found to be outstanding sports person and he is eligible for appointment and then his case be considered for appointment strictly in accordance with merits and policy. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition with pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /32