[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Swati Yadav D/O Shri Sube Singh Yadav vs Union Of India (2025:Rj-Jp:15881-Db) on 9 April, 2025
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Anand Sharma
[2025:RJ-JP:15881-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3923/2025
1. Swati Yadav D/o Shri Sube Singh Yadav, Aged About 32
Years, R/o C-1/16, Apna Ghar, Shalimar, Tijara Road,
Alwar, Rajasthan.
2. Lakshya Chharang S/o Shri Pukhraj Chharang, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Uda, Tehsil Merta City, Dist. Nagaur,
Rajasthan
3. Dr. Sudhanshu Sharma S/o Shri Chetan Prakash Sharma,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o 200 Feet Road, Manna Ka Road,
Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Health And
Family Welfare, Room No. 402-D, Nirman Bhawan, New
Delhi, 110011.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical
And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel And Training, Government Of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Director (Public Health), Medical And Health Services,
Government Of Rajasthan, Chiktisa Bhawan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan
5. Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Through Its
Registrar, Sector 18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG assisted by
Mr. Sankalp Vijay &
Ms. Tanvisha Pant
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Order
09/04/2025
1. Heard.
2. Prayer has been made in this writ petition for issuance of
mandamus to respondents to make amendment in Rule 19 of the
(Downloaded on 15/04/2025 at 09:43:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:15881-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-3923/2025]
Rajasthan Medical & Health Service Rules, 1963, so as to accord
preferential treatment and bonus marks to the petitioners and like
candidates, as they were appointed on the post of Medical Officers
during COVID period.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that similar
scheme of grant of bonus marks has been applied not only to non-
State cadre posts in the Health Department, but in the State cadre
posts of other department also. However, there is no material on
record to show that in the matter of adhoc/contract
appointment/emergency appointment made of other State
services during COVID, a new scheme of granting bonus marks
was implemented.
4. Whether or not, the petitioners or like persons should be
awarded bonus marks or preferential treatment is essentially a
matter of policy. Unless the existing rules are challenged on the
ground of being arbitrary and discriminatory, a direction to
respondents to amend their policy would amount to usurping the
executive function/legislative function.
5. With all sympathy to the petitioners, the Writ Court does not
consider it to be a case for issuance of any mandamus.
6. Nevertheless, if the petitioners approach the State
Government, the State Government may consider their
representation and take a decision one way or the other.
7. Subject to aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed.
(ANAND SHARMA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
RAJAT/15
(Downloaded on 15/04/2025 at 09:43:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link