Nursing Officers, ANMs: Service From Initial Appointment

Service of Contractual Nursing Officers and ANMs to Count From Initial Appointment, Subject to Verification: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 27 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur allowed two connected writ petitions by 19 Nursing Officers and ANMs seeking to have their earlier contractual service counted, directing the State to compute their service from the initial temporary, ad hoc or urgent appointment and grant continuity of service for all purposes after verifying each petitioner's documents and eligibility (paras 1, 4-5). Applying the Division Bench ratio in Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal, it rejected the State's plea that recruitment through drop boxes, without a Selection Committee, set them apart (paras 3-4).

Key holdings

The State's drop-box distinction from Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal, where a Selection Committee had recruited, did not carry much substance (para 3).

The petitioners' selection process also followed the procedure established by law, leaving no distinguishing feature (para 3).

Following the ratio of Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal, both writ petitions were allowed (para 4).

Service runs from the initial temporary, ad hoc or urgent appointment, with continuity for all purposes after verification of documents and eligibility, within eight weeks (para 5).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Six petitioners in S.B. CWP No. 18226/2026 and thirteen in the connected S.B. CWP No. 12434/2026 sought to have their earlier contractual service under the NRHM/UTB/108 Services/RCH projects counted from initial appointment for seniority, pay and service benefits on the post of Nursing Officer/ANM (para 1). Both sides jointly submitted that the dispute was covered by Dinesh Kumar Soni (SAW No. 380/2016), against which an SLP and a review had been dismissed. The order records that the Division Bench in Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal, relying on Jaggo, directed service to count from initial appointment with continuity (para 2). The State said that a Selection Committee recruited those petitioners, while applicants here merely dropped papers in boxes (para 3).

Court's Findings

The Court found that the State's distinction did not carry much substance (para 3). In its view, the entire selection process in the petitioners' case too was followed in accordance with the procedure established by law (para 3). It held that the issue had already been adequately answered and that the petitioners deserved the same treatment as was given in Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal (para 3). Comparing the two cases, the Court found the controversy the same and saw no distinguishing feature that would disentitle the petitioners from the same benefit, on the same terms, conditions and fashion (para 3). In view of the ratio laid down in Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal, it allowed the writ petitions (para 4). The relief was framed as a direction subject to checks: the respondents must verify each petitioner's documents and compute service from the initial temporary, ad hoc or urgent appointment, and, if satisfied about the genuineness of the documents and the petitioners' eligibility, grant continuity of service for all purposes (para 5). The Court did not separately discuss Jaggo or Dinesh Kumar Soni; it decided the matter on the Division Bench ratio (paras 2-4).

Legal Principle

Contractual Nursing Officers and ANMs placed like the petitioners in Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal get the same benefit: service computed from the initial temporary, ad hoc or urgent appointment, with continuity for all purposes, after verification of documents and eligibility. Receipt of applications through drop boxes rather than a Selection Committee did not distinguish them (paras 3-5).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

Nursing Officers and ANMs engaged on contract under the NRHM, UTB, 108 Services or RCH projects may cite this order: the Court refused to distinguish Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal because applicants here dropped their papers in boxes instead of facing a Selection Committee (para 3). The relief is conditional: the department must first verify each petitioner's documents and eligibility, and only then grant continuity, within eight weeks (para 5), so claimants should keep their appointment papers ready. The order applies the Division Bench's ratio rather than deciding the point afresh (paras 2-4).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dinesh Kumar Soni SBSAW No.380/2016
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 2
Counsel for both sides jointly submitted that the controversy is squarely covered by this judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the High Court, and the Court was told that an SLP and a review in the SLP against it had been dismissed (para 2). The Court's own reasoning rests on Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal (paras 3-4).
The State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal & Ors. D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.532/2016 (batch of Special Appeal Writs)
Followed Discussed at ¶ 2, 3, 4
Division Bench judgment in a batch of special appeals which, relying on Jaggo, directed that service be computed from the initial temporary/ad-hoc/urgent appointment with continuity of service for all purposes (para 2). The Court rejected the State's attempt to distinguish it (Selection Committee there, drop boxes here), held the controversy the same and allowed the petitions in view of its ratio (paras 3-4).
Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors. (2024) SCC ONLINE SC 3836
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 2
Supreme Court judgment on which, the order records, the Division Bench in Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal relied in directing that service be computed from the initial appointment with continuity for all purposes (para 2). Not discussed further by the Court.