[2026:RJ-JP:25084-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 543/2026 URN: SAW / 1186U / 2026 1. Employees State Insurance Corporation (Esic), Through Its Director General, Panchdeep Bhawan, Cig Marg, New Delhi 110002. 2. Medical Superintendent, Esic Hospital, Jaipur, Through The Regional Office, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur - 302001 ----Appellants Versus 1. Dr. Avni Bhardwaj D/o Sh. Dharmendra Bhardwaj, R/o H- 3 Prem Nagar Ii, Gurjar Ki Thadi, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302019. 2. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Labour And Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110001 3. Government Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Labour And Employment, Room No. 2018 Main Building, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Namo Narayan Sharma Mr. Mohit Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prem Chand Sharma HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 06/07/2026 1. Heard. 2. The appeal assails the order dated 23.02.2026, whereby the learned Single Judge passed an order directing to provisionally permit the writ petitioner to join on the post of Insurance Medical [2026:RJ-JP:25084-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-543/2026] Officer Grade-II (Allopathic) in terms of the appointment order dated 24.01.2025. 3. Learned counsel submits that the said direction amounts to final order. 4. We do not think so as the learned Single Judge has specifically stated that provisional permission shall not create any equity in favour of the writ petitioner. Moreover, we find that the writ petition filed by the respondent was a second round of litigation, the first one being where the Court directed the writ petitioner to file a representation, which has been rejected stating that the representation for joining is beyond the period of six months. Originally the writ petitioner claimed to have submitted her joining on 14.02.2025, which was not allowed and, therefore, she had to file a writ petition. 5. No case for interference is made out. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 7. If the compliance is not made by the appellants, the respondents would be free to initiate contempt proceedings. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/RAJAT/150