SANTOSH WIFE SHRI BHOOP SINGH v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CW/8942/2026 · 2026-05-25
Anand Sharma V J
Transfer Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 7899 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 7899 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:RJ-JP:22187] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8942/2026
1. Santosh Wife Shri Bhoop Singh, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of Vpo Kolila Sanga, Tehsil Neemrana, District Kotputli- Behror, At Present Posted At Sub-Centre-Sangtera, Chc-Goner Block Kotputli District Kotputli-Behror. 2. Savita Wife Of Shri Ramavtar, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Village Meena Ka Nangal, Post Rampura, Bega Ka Nagal, Tehsil Neem-Ka-Thana, District Sikar, At Present Posted At Sub-Centre-Lalpura, Phc Nayabas, Block Bansur, District Kotputli-Behror. 3. Kusumlata Wife Of Shri Rati Ram, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village Molawas, Tehsil Mundawar, District Khairthal-Tijara, Presently Posted At Phc Indor, Block Tijara, District Khairthal-Tijara. 4. Kamlesh Yadav Wife Of Shri Mukesh Kumar, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Ofmajri Kala, Tehsil Neemrana, District Kotputli-Behror. Present Posted At Sub-Centre Talwana, Block Shahjapur, District, Kotputali Behror
5. Asha Devi Wife Of Shri Sanwal Ram, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Village Ramchandpura, Post Partapur, Tehsil Mandhan, District Kotputli-Behror, At Present Posted At Sub- Centre Ramchandpura, Block Shahjapur, District Kotputli- Behror. 6. Sushila Dayma Wife Of Shri Jitendra Singh Dayma, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 6, Govind Vihar Colony, Kotputli, District Kotputli-Behror, Posted At Phc Kalyanpura Kalan, Block And A District Kotputli-Behror. 7. Savitri Devi Wife Of Shri Gyanedra Singh, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Shiv Printing Press, Goal Bagh Road, Bharatpur, At Present Posted At Sub-Centre Rotwada, Chc Phagi, District Jaipur Rural. 8. Suman Napit Wife Of Shri Jagdish Prasad Sain, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Pilava Chandwaji, District Jaipur, At Present Posted At Sub-Centre Goal, Phc Dhaula, Chc Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, (Public Health) Medical and Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Kotputli-Behror. 4. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Sikar
5. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Khirthal-Tijara. 6. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jaipur, District Jaipur. 7. Chief Medical And Health Officer, . Jaipur Ii, District Jaipur. ----Respondents
[2026:RJ-JP:22187] (2 of 2) [CW-8942/2026] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hira Lal with Mr. Nitin Sinsinwar & Ms. Bhawana Gothwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Verma on behalf of Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 25/05/2026
1.
It is jointly submitted by learned counsels appearing for both the parties that the controversy involved in this writ petition is no more res-integra and has already been decided by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.312/2026 (Suman Saharan & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.), wherein following directions have been given:
"4. In view of the ratio laid down in Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal (supra), the present writ petition is allowed. 5. The respondents are directed to verify the documents of each petitioner and compute the services of the petitioner from the date of their initial appointment on temporary/ad-hoc/urgent basis. Upon such verification, if the respondents are satisfied about the genuineness of the documents and the eligibility of the petitioners, the benefit of continuity of services for all purposes shall be granted to them. Appropriate orders be passed within a period of eight weeks from now."
2. In view of the consensus arrived at between the learned counsels for both the parties, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the present writ petition in the same terms and with the same directions as given in the case of Suman Saharan (supra). 3. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J 56/DAKSH