Allowed

Pawan Jaipal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Jul 2020CW/1228/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed group writ petitions filed by physically handicapped candidates who secured marks above the cut-off for their respective categories. Relying on a coordinate bench judgment, the Court directed the appointment authorities to consider them in the open category or their own SC/ST/OBC category, subject to a fitness certificate under Rule 13 of the 1965 Rules.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners were allowed to be considered in open category or their own category ignoring disability, subject to furnishing a fitness certificate and a speaking order to be passed if found ineligible.

Pawan Jaipal Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

(1 of 4)

¶2

[CW-1286/2020]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1286/2020

¶5

Bhawana Dhadich D/o Shiv Raj Dadhich, Aged About 37 Years, Plot No.07, Tapashvi Nagar, Dadhich Bhawan, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical Health & Family Welfare Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶9

Additional Director (Admn), Medical & Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 607/2020

¶13

Sunita D/o Shri Roop Chand, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Karalon Ka Bas, Bhangarh, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical & Health, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶17

Additional Director (Administration), Medical And Health Services, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶18

Chief Medical And Health Officer, Hanumangarh.

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1228/2020

¶21

Pawan Jaipal S/o Tejaram Jaipal, Aged About 28 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Bhutton Ka Baas, Fatipura, Bikaner, District Bikaner (Rajasthan)

¶22

----Petitioner

¶23

Versus

¶24

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical & Health, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶25

The Director, Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶26

The Additional Director (Administration), Department Of Medical & Health, Jaipur.

¶27

----Respondents

¶28

(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1918/2020

¶29

Kailash Kaswan S/o Ramchandra, Aged About 27 Years, (Physically Handicapped Candidate-OL, Marks Obtained 81.034), Resident Of Village/Post Paliyas, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur

¶30

(2 of 4)

¶31

[CW-1286/2020]

¶32

(Raj.) Mobile Number-8696106886.

¶33

----Petitioner

¶34

Versus

¶35

State Of Raj., Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Medical And Health Services, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶36

Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶37

Dr. Sampurnand Medical College, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Through Its Principal.

¶38

The Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jodhpur.

¶39

The Medical Officer In-Charge, Community Health Centre Luni, District Jodhpur.

¶40

----Respondents

¶41

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Y.P. Khileree Mr. Mukesh Dave Mr. Ram Niwas Mr. Surendra Bana

¶42

For Respondent(s) : Mr.K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with Mr. Shreyansh Mehta

¶43

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶44

Order

¶45

06/07/2020

¶46

The petitioners from the present group of cases have approached this Court, interalia, with an assertion that they have secured higher marks than the cut-off declared for PH category and thus, they are entitled to be considered in their own category ignoring their disability, having secured more marks than the cutoff.

¶47

Having submitted this, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment dated 06.03.2020, rendered by Jaipur Bench of this Court in bunch of writ petitions led by Sunita

¶48

Kumari Vs. The State of Raj. & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

¶49

(3 of 4)

¶50

[CW-1286/2020]

¶51

No.1760/2020 and submitted that the issue at hand is squarely covered by the judgment aforesaid.

¶52

This Court in Sunita Kumari’s case has held as under:

¶53

“10. Accordingly, this Court holds that those candidates, who have one leg disability above 40% shall be considered under the reserved category for appointment on the posts of ANM/GNM as per their merit. However, other candidates, who have disability other than one leg, would not be eligible to claim appointment under the reserved quota, but could be eligible to be considered under Open Category or in their own category of SC/ST/OBC as per their own merit provided they are found to be suitable in terms of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1965, which reads as under:

¶54

“13. Physical Fitness:- A candidate for direct recruitment to the Service, must be in good mental or bodily health and free from any mental or a physical defect likely to interfere with the efficient performance of his duties as a member of service and if selected must produce a certificate to that effect from a Medical Authority notified by the Government for the purpose. The Appointing Authority may dispense with production of such certificate in the case of candidate promoted in the regular line of promotion, or who is already serving in connection with the affairs of the State if he has already been medically examined for the previous appointment and the essential standards of medical examination of the two posts held by him are to be comparable for efficient

¶55

(4 of 4) [CW-1286/2020]

¶56

performance of duties of the new post and his age has not reduced his efficiency.

¶57

If any of the candidates’ candidature is rejected, then a speaking order shall be passed rejecting their candidate and the concerned(s) would be entitled to assail the same independently.”

¶58

Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General is not in a position to dispute the fact that the petitioners have secured more marks than the cut-off declared for their respective category and that the matter is in principle covered by the coordinate Bench decision in Sunita Kumari’s case (supra).

¶59

In view of the aforesaid, these writ petitions are allowed in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Sunita Kumari’s case.

¶60

The petitioners herein shall be required to furnish a certificate of their fitness, as required under Rule 13 of Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965.

¶61

Needful be done within a period of six weeks from today.

¶62

In case the respondents are of the view that the petitioners

¶63

are not otherwise eligible to be appointed, they shall pass a speaking order.

¶64

Stay petitions also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶65

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶66

12-15-Ramesh/-

Pawan Jaipal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Jaipal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sohan Lal Vs the Principal Secretary

Vikas Kumar Dungarwal Vs Vaibhav Galria

Deravar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunita Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhawana Dhadich Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Kaswan Vs State of Raj.