Banswara v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary

District Sriganganagar.

11. Kanti Lal Garasiya Son Of Sh. Khatu Garasiya, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Sodla Dooda, Post Jambudi, Tehsil Bagidora, District Banswara (Raj.) Presently Posted As Medical Officer, Sub-District Hospital, Kushalgarh, District Banswara. ----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Commissioner, Medical Education Department, Chikitsa Siksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Janta Colony, Jaipur.

3. Director, Medical And Health, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailender Singh Balwada For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC Mr. Prakhar Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 07/07/2025

1. By means of filing instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been made to a Circular dated 11.06.2025 issued by the Director Medical and Health, Government of Rajasthan (Annx.6) and consequentially seeking direction against the respondents to relieve the petitioners from [2025:RJ-JP:24979] (3 of 5) [CW-9666/2025] their present place of posting as Medical Officer, in order to join the course of Senior Residents.

2. Having heard counsel for petitioners and counsel for respondents, this Court finds that the Circular dated 11.06.2025 is the policy decision of the State Government, which has been taken in the background of facts, that in case the present serving Medical Officers are relieved to join SRship, sufficient number of Medical Officer shall not be available in the Government hospitals to serve the public at large.

3. The contention of Additional Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents is that appointment of near about 1700 medical officers is under way and they are likely to be appointed within a period of one month, hence thereafter, certainly the petitioners would be relieved from their post to join the SRship.

4. Counsel for petitioner, sought to take a plea of discrimination with petitioners qua other similarly situated Doctors, since few of the other Medical Officers have already been relieved by the respondents to join SRship. Learned counsel drew attention of this Court towards the relieving orders of those Medical Officers dated

06.06.2025 collectively marked as (Annx.7).

5. A perusal of such relieving orders, issued in respect of other medical officers shows that their relieving orders pertains to a date which is prior to the issuance of Circular dated 11.06.2025 by the respondent.

6. Counsel for petitioner is not able to show any of the relieve order in favour of any Medical Officer post to issuance of Circular [2025:RJ-JP:24979] (4 of 5) [CW-9666/2025] dated 11.06.2025, with whom the petitioners have been discriminated.

7. This Court is conscious about the principle of intelligible differentia as promulgated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satya Dev Bhagaur Vs. The State of Rajasthan [(2022) 5 SCC 314], wherein, while defining the scope of interference of Courts in policy decisions of State, has held and observed in Para no. 15 as under: “15. It is trite that the Courts would be slow in interfering in the policy matters, unless the policy is found to be palpably discriminatory and arbitrary. This Court would not interfere with the policy decision when a State is in a position to point out that there is intelligible differentia in application of policy and that such intelligible differentia has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved.” The ratio decidendi, expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Satya Dev Bhagaur (Supra), has been followed by the Division Bench of Rajsthan High Court in DBCWP No.12341/2021: Dr. Rahul Kumar Sanwariya Vs. State of Rajasthan.

8. This Court does not find that petitioners have been discriminated with the similarly situated persons. The persons who have been relieved prior to 11.06.2025 fall in a different category, hence, petitioners cannot claim parity/equality with them.

9. As far as grievance of petitioners that by that time, Medical Officer would get appointment and joining, the period of joining by petitioners of SRship Course, expired. It is suffice to record the statements of counsel for respondents that the joining of SRship would also be extended by the respondents until the relieving of the petitioners. [2025:RJ-JP:24979] (5 of 5) [CW-9666/2025]

10. Hence, no case is make out in favour of petitioners to quash the Circular dated 11.06.2025 in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The grievance of petitioners stands resolved in view of statements of counsel for respondents noted hereinabove.

11. As a consequence, the writ petition is bereft of merits and same is hereby dismissed.

12. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. RONAK JAIMAN/242-S (SUDESH BANSAL),J