Disposed

State of Rajasthan v. Dr. Babita D/O Budharmal

Rajasthan HC15 Nov 2021SAW/119/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal filed by the State challenging an interim order that allowed a state doctor to pursue PG studies. The court held that recalling the order was impractical as most of the course period had already passed, reserving the question of the studying condition for an appropriate case.

What did the court decide?

Interim order of Single Judge allowing petitioner to pursue PG course not recalled; appeal disposed of with observation that question of condition being arbitrary reserved for appropriate case.

State of Rajasthan Vs Dr. Babita D/O… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 119/2021

¶3

State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan-302005

¶4

The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Churu.

¶5

The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bhilwara.

¶6

The Chairman, Neet PG Medical And Dental Admission/counseling Board-2020, And Principal, Govt. Dental College, Subhash Nagar, Behind T.b. Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶7

----Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Dr. Babita D/o Budharmal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o VPO Jandwa, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.

¶10

Dr. Sunita Bajya D/o Sardar Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o VPO Khejroli, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶11

Medical Counseling Committee, Through Director General, Directorate General Of Health Services, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, Delhi-110011

¶12

National Board Of Examinations, Through Its Director, Medical Enclave, Ansari Nagar, Ring Road, New Delhi110029

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harshal Tholia for Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG For Respondent(s) :

¶15

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order

¶16

15/11/2021

¶17

We notice that the appeal is filed beyond the limitation prescribed, however, since we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge for the reasons noted below, it is not necessary to consider the question of limitation.

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[SAW-119/2021]

¶20

This appeal is filed by the State to challenge the interim order dated 23/07/2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, which reads as under:-

¶21

“Heard counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

Issue notice to the respondent/s, returnable on 17.08.2020.

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner may supply copy of the writ petition in the office of Dr. V.B. Sharma during course of the day.

¶24

Office is directed to show name of Dr. V.B. Sharma in the cause list.

¶25

In the meanwhile, a bond shall be taken from the petitioner of Rs. 5 Lacs for joining the State Services after completing the PG course for three years. State shall release her original documents for being produced in the respective medical course.

¶26

List on 17.08.2020 along with SB Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5532/2020, 5871/2020 and 5874/2020.”

¶27

The petitioner almost immediately after joined the government service requested for the Study Leave and NOC for pursuing PG Medical Course. The government had issued order for appointment of the petitioner and other candidates on 25/03/2020. This appointment order contained a condition that initially for a period of one year, no study leave shall be granted. This condition the petitioner had challenged in the writ petition. By way of said interim-order, the petitioner was subjected to condition for furnishing a bond to serve the government at least for a period of three years after completing the PG Course and has been permitted to pursue the said course in which she had secured admission.

¶28

In the facts of the present case, at this belated stage, it is not possible to recall the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned government counsel fairly stated that in terms of the said order the petitioner has been allowed to join the PG Course. Such course would be for a duration of two years.

¶29

(3 of 3)

¶30

[SAW-119/2021]

¶31

More than one year out of two years is already over after the learned Single Judge passed the order granting permission to the petitioner to join the course. Recalling the petitioner at this stage would mean that one PG seat on which she has substantially pursued the training would remain vacant and go waste.

¶32

Prima-facie, the government may be justified in arguing that a condition of appointment which prevents a newly appointed doctor from pursuing further studies for a period of one year, cannot be termed as irrational or arbitrary. However, we would reserve our final opinion on this issue for an appropriate case.

¶33

With these observations, the appeal is disposed of. All pending applications are also disposed of.

¶34

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶35

(AKIL KURESHI),CJ

¶36

Anil Goyal-BM Gandhi-PS/109

State of Rajasthan v. Dr. Babita D/O Budharmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rajasthan v. Dr. Babita D/O Budharmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aneshi Kumari Choudhary D/O Kishan Lal Choudhary Vs the State of Rajasthan

M/S Jvg Super Cargo Service Limited Vs the State Tax Officer

Himakshi Alaria C/O Mr. Vinod Kr. Alaria, Vs Union of India

The State of Rajasthan Vs Ratan Singh Meena S/O Shri Baniyaram Meena

Sulatan Singh Son of Shri Pokhar Mal Vs Registrar Examination

Anil Kumar Sharma S/O Rakesh Sharma Vs Registrar General