[2026:RJ-JP:245] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 193/2025 1. Rakesh Kumar Bakoliya S/o Sh. Shimbhu Dayal Bakoliya, R/o Vpo Khelna, Tehsil- Paota, District- Jaipur. 2. Smt. Prem Kumari D/o Sh. Mahavir Singh, R/o 263/78, Sector 263, Near Nri Colony, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Amrit Lal Parihar S/o Sh. Nathu Ram, Resident Of Vpo Barwa, Tehsil Bali, District Pali. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Social Justice And Empowerment, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. The Director, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Commissioner For Persons With Disabilities, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3/1, Vishesh Yogyajan Bhawan (Vistar), Hotel Rajmahal, Residency Area, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Parihar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Ms. Sweekriti Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 06/01/2026 1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the matter of recruitment for the post of Nursing Officer/Pharmacist, the petitioners were denied opportunity only on the ground that the persons having disability of one arm were excluded from [2026:RJ-JP:245] (2 of 5) [WRW-193/2025] consideration from the post of Nursing Officer. He further submitted that to challenge the discrimination, a writ petition is filed before this Hon’ble Court, but inadvertently a Government notification was mentioned and on the basis of the said notification a statement was made that the petitioners were required to challenge the same. He further submits that notification dated 07.01.2021, issued by Government of India, is in fact helpful for the petitioners and the same is not required to be challenged, therefore the writ petition is maintainable before the Single Jude Bench. He further submitted that the respondents have adopted the qualification prescribed for Nurse for recruitment on post of Nursing Officer. At last, he submitted that the Government of India has included persons with disabilities having one arm in the category of recruitment for the post of Nursing Officer. 2. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by Mr. Archit Bohra, A.G.C., on the ground that the respondents have constituted a Committee and on the basis of recommendation made by the Committee, the persons with physical disability of one arm were not included for consideration on the post of Nursing Officer. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. The petitioners have filed a writ petition to challenge the policy of recruitment adopted by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and they have not included persons having disability of one arm for recruitment on the post of Nursing Officer. During pendency of the petition, an amendment application has [2026:RJ-JP:245] (3 of 5) [WRW-193/2025] been filed by the petitioners and while considering the amendment application on 03.11.2025, this Court has observed as under: “2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the respondents have advertised recruitment for the post of Nursing Officer and petitioner fulfills the criteria in PH Category as prescribed by Union of India vide Gazette Notification dated 07.01.2021 but the respondents have not included the person with one arm in the category of PH to give them benefit for the category for which the petitioners have filed their applications. 3. Learned counsel for respondent submits that on the basis of recommendation of Advisory Committee, the respondents have adopted qualification of Nurse-General which is in serial list in said notification, therefore, it is necessary for the petitioners to challenge the notification issued by the respondents, which is maintainable before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he has moved an application No. 01/2025 for amendment in prayer of writ petition, therefore, he may be permitted to withdraw the instant writ petition with liberty to file a fresh D.B. Writ Petition to challenge the notification [2026:RJ-JP:245] (4 of 5) [WRW-193/2025] after including the amended prayer made in the application No. 01/2025 in writ petition and with aforesaid, the interim order be protected for next four weeks. 5. Having considered aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. 6. The interim order dated 16.01.2025 would remain in force for next 4 weeks but it would be deemed to be vacated after expiry of 4 weeks.” 5. The petitioners have filed current review petition after, changing the lawyer, though during the course of argument learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that earlier counsel was on legs in another Court, but till conclusion of hearing the counsel who represented the petitioners on 03.11.2025 has not appeared to represent petitioners. 6. Normally, a review petition can be filed against the order passed in writ petition on specific but limited grounds. The review petition can be filed primarily on the ground that when there is an error apparent on the face of the record; secondly, wherever there is a discovery of new fact not previously available despite due diligence. Except these two grounds, a review is not maintainable, though the Court may consider other sufficient grounds available with the petitioners. 7. There are no grounds except that the petitioners are not required to file a D.B. writ petition to challenge the [2026:RJ-JP:245] (5 of 5) [WRW-193/2025] notification, as the notification dated 07.01.2021, issued by Government of India, is helpful for the petitioners. The contention raised by learned counsel for respondents clearly indicates that as per report of the Committee, the case of present petitioners (persons with disability of one arm) were not included for consideration in PH category in the said advertisement. It means that the petitioners are not eligible to be considered under said recruitment notification for the post of Nursing officer. 8. Having considered aforesaid, no case is made out for review of the order dated 03.11.2025, hence the review petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the review petition is hereby dismissed. Miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /09