Tehsil- Mandawar, District- Dausa (Raj.) vs State of Rajasthan, through The Additional Chief

Years, R/o 1291-B, Shrinathpuram, Kota (Raj.)

59. Ajay Singh Meena S/o Sh. Prahlad Meena, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 72, Shri Nath Enclave, Kota (Raj.)

60. Aruna Verma D/o Sh. Gori Shankar Verma, Aged About 44 Years, R/o 321, Keshavpura, Sector-4, Kota (Raj.)

61. Jitendra Meghwal S/o Sh. Manna Lal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 59, Adarsh Nagar, Bundi Road, Kota (Raj.)

62. Rajendra Chouhan S/o Sh. Hanuman Chouhan, Aged About 43 Years, R/o 6/165, Mukta Prasad Nagar, Bikaner (Raj.)

63. Radheshyam Solanki S/o Sh. Vakta Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Mahilawas, Sivana, District- Barmer (Raj.)

64. Vijay Kumar Meena S/o Sh. Prabhu Dayal Meena, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village And Post- Bugala, Tehsil- Nawalgarh, District- Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

65. Satish Meena S/o Sh. Laxmi Chand Meena, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 495, Ganesh Nagar, Dausa (Raj.)

66. Santosh Kumar S/o Sh. Mangi Lal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Nayakon Ka Bass, Hamirvas, Manda, Pali (Raj.)

67. Yashoda Geenger D/o Sh. Tulsi Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o B-19, Uit Quarter, Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.)

68. Kailash Kumar S/o Sh. Mohan Lal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Hemawas, Pali (Raj.)

69. Vijay Kumar Meena S/o Sh. Puran Mal Meena, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village And Post- Khatehpura, Tehsil And District- Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

70. Jitendra Kumar Meena S/o Sh. Mahendra Singh Meena, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village And Post- Mandawar, (6 of 8) [CW-10990/2023] Tehsil- Mandawar, District- Dausa (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Medical Health and Family Welfare, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Medical Health Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

3. Director (Non-Gazetted), Department of Medical and Health Services, Govt. of Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhil Simlote, For Respondent(s) Mr. Diskhant Jain and Mr. Ashvini Raj Tanwar : Mr. Archit Bohra-AGC, Mr. Akshit Gupta, Ms. Pragya Seth, Mr. Nakul Bansal and Mr. Shreyansh Dhariwal JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 11/02/2025

1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners were granted promotion to the post of Senior Nursing Officer way back in the year 2018, on the basis of their seniority. Counsels submit that after a lapse of more than five years, the impugned order has been passed by the respondents for conducting Review DPC. Counsels submit that the aforesaid order has been passed by the respondents without issuing any notice (7 of 8) [CW-10990/2023] and without providing any opportunity of hearing to them. Counsels submit that the aforesaid order has also been passed without determining the roster points and no reason was assigned for conducting any Review DPC, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents oppose the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submit that the post of Nursing Superintendent I and II has been re- designated as per amendment in Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Services Rules, 1965 and hence a decision was taken to conduct Review DPC. Counsels submit that the State has submitted its reply with the undertaking that no recovery would be effected from the petitioners or any aggrieved persons, in case their promotion order is challenged. Counsels submit that the petitioners would not be prejudiced and would not be deputed to any subordinate post. Counsels submit that in promotion matters, the roster points related to original recruitment are not applicable and the roster points are adjusted on the basis of the arisen vacancies. Counsels submit that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

4. Considering the arguments raised by counsel for the rival sides and looking to the fact that prior to taking a decision, to conduct Review DPC neither any notice nor any opportunity was granted to the petitioners which has been resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, in the fitness of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of this writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioners to submit a detailed comprehensive representation for (8 of 8) [CW-10990/2023] redressal of their grievances before the State Authority. In case, the petitioners submit a detailed comprehensive representation in the office of the respondents within a period of two weeks from today, it is expected from the State Authority to decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

5. Stay application and other application (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.

6. Till disposal of the representation, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the promotion exercise qua the petitioners. Ashu/261 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J