[2026:RJ-JP:14189-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1410/2019 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Additional Director (Administration) Medical And Health, Directorate, Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus Om Prakash Deora Son Of Shri Ramesh Chand Deora, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Hariom Niwas, Rajgali, Jhalarpatan, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Priyanka Agarwal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vigyan Shah, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, Advocate. Mr. Deepak, Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 06/04/2026 1. This special appeal (writ) has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. The respondent—petitioner was appointed in the year 1996 on the post of Lab Technician. His services were terminated by the respondents on 30.04.2001 on the ground that he has not taken training from a recognised institution. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition held as under: 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and find that the list has been placed on record in 1998 while the [2026:RJ-JP:14189-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1410/2019] petitioner was appointed in 1986. The certificate which the petitioner has placed on record, shows that the same has been issued by the Government Hospital, Bhopal (MP). It is not the case of the respondent/s that the training course conducted by the recognized Government Hospital of Madhya Pradesh is not equivalent to that of training course conducted by Medical Hospital in Rajasthan. So far as rule for appointment under the Rajasthan Medical & Health Surbordinate Rules, 1965 is concerned, requisite qualification required is Secondary or equivalent with 09 month’s training certificate of the institute recognized by the Government. No document has been produced by the respondent to show that the training certificate issued by the Government Hospital of Bhopal (MP) duly signed by CM & HO, Bhopal is not a recognized institute by the State of Rajasthan. Even otherwise possible the institute granting certificate by the respective State Government cannot be held to be de-recognized by another State Government in the fedral form of Government. The respective State Governments are entitled to conduct courses. However, it is only the additional body which may take a decision of recognition or de-recognition of a course being conducted in another State. Except the above, it is not for the State Government’s authorities to de-recognize the institute run by the respective State Governments. Be that as it may, in the present case, the petitioner’s certificate has not been de-recognized nor a show cause notice has been served on the petitioner nor any inquiry was conducted, hence the action is thus contrary to the provisions as laid down under the CCA Rules, 1958 or also against the principles of natural justice and would, therefore, be deemed to be non est and void. 5. Accordingly, in view of above, writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.4.2001 is quashed and set aside. Taking into consideration that the petitioner was a regular employee working with the department, and had already put in service of 14 years and had already been granted [2026:RJ-JP:14189-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1410/2019] first selection scale, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner and give him all consequential benefits including the arrears of service and pay fixation under the Revised Pay-scale from time to time. The petitioner shall also be entitled to receive interest @ 6% per annum. Compliance of that order be made within a period of three months, failing which the petitioner shall be free to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent/s. 3. Counsel for the respondent informed that the respondent— petitioner has retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2020. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We have also considered the fact that the respondent—petitioner has already retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, we are not inclined to take a different view as has been taken by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 04.12.2018. 6. In that view of the matter, this special appeal (writ) is dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Tushar/169