Rajasthan v. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary

Judgment

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health Services, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director/ Additional Director (P.h.), Medical And Health Services, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Swasthaya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, 302007 (Raj.).

3. Office Of Chairman Dm/m.ch/md/ms Candidates Allotments Board-2025, Sms Medical College, Jln Marg, Gangwal Park, Adarsh Nagar, 302004 Jaipur, Rajasthan

4. The Principal, Dr. Sampurnanand Medical College, Residency Road, Sector- D, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342003

5. National Medical Commission Through Its Secretary, Pocket - 14, Sector - 8, Phase-I, Dwarka, New Delhi-110 077 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Ms. Purvi Mathur with Mr. Kushagra Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sankalp Vijay with Mr. Yash Joshi on behalf of Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 28/05/2025

1. Present petition is filed with the following prayers:- “i.) The Respondents may kindly be directed to rectify the name of the Petitioner from Non- Service to an In-Service candidate; [2025:RJ-JP:22378] (2 of 5) [CW-7247/2025] ii.) The Respondents may kindly be directed to issue a revised merit list wherein the Petitioner may kindly be categorized as an In-Service candidate; and 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 Petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was discharging her duties as a full time Medical Officer under the employment of administrative control of the respondent-State. It is further submitted that the petitioner has participated in the NEET-P.G. 2021 examination, wherein, she was declared successful.

3. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has appeared in the counseling process as an in-service candidate in the Year 2021, however, the merit list declared by the respondent categorized the petitioner under non-service candidate, without specifying any justified reason.

4. Furthermore, it is submitted that the petitioner was served with a Relieving Letter dated 12.05.2022 issued by Joint Government Secretary with ‘No Objection Certificate’, which further establishes that she was in-service candidate.

5. Additionally, it is submitted that the petitioner has filed various representations before the concerned authority on

06.05.2022 and has prayed to correct the said error, however, the same was not considered.

6. In this background it is submitted that the petitioner after completion of her P.G. Course for Micro Biology from the respective University, Jodhpur in the year 2025 has applied for appearing in the counseling process for the Senior Residency. [2025:RJ-JP:22378] (3 of 5) [CW-7247/2025] Pursuant to the advertisement notification dated 03.04.2025, issued by the respondent No.3, respondents allotted the petitioner a Medical College in Churu under the non-service category. Being aggrieved of the same and consideration of the petitioner under the non-service category, which is effecting the merit tenure and remuneration of the petitioner, various representations were filed by the petitioner, howsoever the same were not considered. Therefore, the present petition is filed.

7. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner is an in-service candidate and non consideration of the petitioner under the said category is affecting her merit, thus, her claim ought to be considered under the respective category and not otherwise.

8. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments titled as Kum. Iqra Maqsood Admed Ansari Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition No.15277/2022, Dr. Lakshmi P Gowda Vs. Nation National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences & Anr. in Writ Petition No. 12859/2023 passed by Bengluru (Karnataka High Court) and Kanchan Kumawat Vs. Union of India & Ors. registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17069/2024.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection and has submitted that non-service categorization was made in the year 2021 qua the NEET-PG 2021 examination, which was never assailed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the same is challenged when the notification was issued qua selection for Senior Residency. Therefore, the grievance is raised by the petitioner at a belated stage. [2025:RJ-JP:22378] (4 of 5) [CW-7247/2025]

10. Further, it is submitted that as on date, third party rights are created and the petitioner has filed the petition on 02.05.2025, wherein, no interim order was passed and on 05.05.2025 merit list was declared under the respective categories and examination process qua the same is concluded.

11. Additionally, it is submitted that the petitioner has not impleaded the third parties in the present petition in array of respondents, therefore, their rights will get prejudiced if decision is passed in favour of the petitioner.

12. Further, it is submitted that as per clause No. 7 of the Instruction Booklet, issued by the Allotment Board 2025, assigning merit for allotment to in-service candidate will be on the basis of the admission category which was provided in the PG course. Moreover, in the PG course, the petitioner was granted admission under the non-service category which was never assailed by the petitioner. Therefore, when Clause No.7 was not put to challenge, the lis in question does not survive.

13. Having heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and scanned the judgments cited at the Bar, this Court has made the following observations:-

13.1. That the petitioner has applied for Senior Residency.

13.2. That her category under the NEET-PG 2021 examination was non-service and respondents have acted in compliance of the condition specified in Clause No.7 of the Instruction Booklet (Annexure R/2), which was never assailed by the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:22378] (5 of 5) [CW-7247/2025]

13.3. That as on date, third party rights are created and none of the third parties are impleaded as a party in the present petition.

13.4. That the present petition is filed at a belated stage.

13.5. That the reason for consideration of non-service candidature of the petitioner is due to non-submission of the application form within stipulated time period as required to be submitted with the respondents as per the Communications issued by the Department (Annexure R/1).

14. Taking note of the aforementioned observations, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present petition.

15. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand dismissed. MAHIMA/328 (SAMEER JAIN),J