Sangeeta Kalal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (with Champalal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

[2026:RJ-JD:52234]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18226/2026
CNR: RJHC010777162026 | URN: CW / 31491U / 2026

(1) Sangeeta Kalal (2) Rupa Prajapat (3) Sunita Meena (4) Vidhya Gahlot (5) Anita Kumari (6) Chhaya Mackwan ----Petitioners
Versus
(1) State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (2) The Secretary, Department Of Medical Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (3) The Director, Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. (4) The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. (5) The Joint Director, Medical And Health Services, Udaipur Zone, District Udaipur, Rajasthan. (6) The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan. (7) The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan. (8) The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Banswara, District Banswara, Rajasthan. (9) The Principal And Controller, Ravindranath Tagore Medical College And Associated Group Of Hospitals, Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents

Connected With

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12434/2026
CNR: RJHC010539462026 | URN: CW / 22575U / 2026

(1) Champalal (2) Surendra Kumar Solanki (3) Mohammed Tahir (4) Mohammad Sazid (5) Manoj Kumar Sharma (6) Mana Ram Rabari (7) Parasmal Dabi (8) Arun Kumar (9) Dinesh Kumar (10) Mohammad Iftkar Husain (11) Guptesh Kumar (12) Shahina Parvej Sayed (13) Pankaj Kumar ----Petitioners
Versus
(1) State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (2) The Secretary, Department Of Medical Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (3) The Director, Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. (4) The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. (5) The Principal-Cum-Controller, Dr. Sampurnanand Medical College And Associated Groups Of Hospitals, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (6) The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jalore, District Jalore, Rajasthan. (7) The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Kailash Jangid
For Respondent(s): Mr. Tanuj Jain on behalf of Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC

[NyayVidhan notes: Stored from the official Rajasthan High Court PDF of the order (hcraj, 7 pages, uploaded 26.10.2026). (1) This is one common order in two connected writ petitions. The Court deals with each petition under its own heading and numbers the paragraphs 1-6 under each heading; the two sets of paragraphs are word for word the same, so a reference to a paragraph number applies to both. (2) The cause titles are abridged: the petitioners' parentage, ages and addresses are omitted and the list numbers are shown as (1), (2) and so on; the respondents are as printed. (3) The order prints no 'Reportable' mark. (4) The text is otherwise as printed, including 'SBSAW No.380/2016' and 'Coordinate Bench' (paragraph 2), 'drop the irrelevant papers in the boxes installed', 'followed up' and 'dis entitle' (paragraph 3) and 'compute the services of the petitioner' (paragraph 5). Page furniture (running heads, page numbers, upload/download stamps, the staff lines and the TCPDF line) is removed. The PDF is authoritative.]

[Source: Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — order dated 26.10.2026.]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

26/10/2026

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18226/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioners may kindly be allowed: - A. By an appropriate order or direction, any order denying for count the earlier contractual services of the petitioners from their initial date of appointment to provide the seniority, pay benefits and all service benefits on the post of Nursing Officer/ANM may kindly be quashed and set aside. B. By an appropriate, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the seniority and all other services benefits of the petitioners on the post of Nursing Officer/ANM while count from their initial date of appointment of their contractual services under the project of NRHM/UTB/108 Services/RCH. C. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the services of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment as Nursing Officer/ANM on contractual basis in accordance with the various judgments and directions passed by the Hon'ble Courts in identical cases. ..….”

2. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy involved is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar Soni: SBSAW No.380/2016 and it is apprised to this court that an SLP as well as review in the SLP against the order above have been dismissed. Observing all those things in a judgment rendered in a batch of Special Appeal Writs led by D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.532/2016 (The State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal & Ors.), relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.; (2024) SCC ONLINE SC 3836, directed the respondents to compute the services of the petitioners from the date of their initial temporary/ad-hoc/urgent appointment and grant continuity of service for all purposes.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the State that in the case of Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal (supra), a Selection Committee had been constituted for the purpose of recruitment of the petitioners therein, whereas in the present case, the aspirants were merely allowed through the advertisement to drop the irrelevant papers in the boxes installed, does not carry much substance. This Court is of the view that in the case of petitioners also, the entire selection process was followed up in accordance with the procedure established by law. The issue involved in this case has adequately been answered and thus the petitioners too deserve to get the same treatment as has been given in the case of Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal (supra). Hence, I am of the view that the controversy involved in the case referred supra and the case in hand is the same and there are no distinguishable features so as to dis entitle the petitioners to get the same benefit as has been given to the petitioners in the case of Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal (supra) in the same terms and conditions and fashion.

4. In view of the ratio laid down in Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal (supra), the present writ petition is allowed.

5. The respondents are directed to verify the documents of each petitioner and compute the services of the petitioner from the date of their initial appointment on temporary/ad-hoc/urgent basis. Upon such verification, if the respondents are satisfied about the genuineness of the documents and the eligibility of the petitioners, the benefit of continuity of services for all purposes shall be granted to them. Appropriate orders be passed within a period of eight weeks from now.

6. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12434/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioners may kindly be allowed: - A. By an appropriate order or direction, any order denying for count the earlier contractual services of the petitioners from their initial date of appointment to provide the seniority, pay benefits and all service benefits on the post of Nursing Officer/ANM may kindly be quashed and set aside. B. By an appropriate, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the seniority and all other services benefits of the petitioners on the post of Nursing Officer/ANM while count from their initial date of appointment of their contractual services under the project of NRHM/UTB/108 Services/RCH. C. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the services of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment as Nursing Officer/ANM on contractual basis in accordance with the various judgments and directions passed by the Hon'ble Courts in identical cases. ..….”

2. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy involved is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar Soni: SBSAW No.380/2016 and it is apprised to this court that an SLP as well as review in the SLP against the order above have been dismissed. Observing all those things in a judgment rendered in a batch of Special Appeal Writs led by D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.532/2016 (The State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal & Ors.), relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.; (2024) SCC ONLINE SC 3836, directed the respondents to compute the services of the petitioners from the date of their initial temporary/ad-hoc/urgent appointment and grant continuity of service for all purposes.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the State that in the case of Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal (supra), a Selection Committee had been constituted for the purpose of recruitment of the petitioners therein, whereas in the present case, the aspirants were merely allowed through the advertisement to drop the irrelevant papers in the boxes installed, does not carry much substance. This Court is of the view that in the case of petitioners also, the entire selection process was followed up in accordance with the procedure established by law. The issue involved in this case has adequately been answered and thus the petitioners too deserve to get the same treatment as has been given in the case of Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal (supra). Hence, I am of the view that the controversy involved in the case referred supra and the case in hand is the same and there are no distinguishable features so as to dis entitle the petitioners to get the same benefit as has been given to the petitioners in the case of Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal (supra) in the same terms and conditions and fashion.

4. In view of the ratio laid down in Dr. Paritosh Ujjwal (supra), the present writ petition is allowed.

5. The respondents are directed to verify the documents of each petitioner and compute the services of the petitioner from the date of their initial appointment on temporary/ad-hoc/urgent basis. Upon such verification, if the respondents are satisfied about the genuineness of the documents and the eligibility of the petitioners, the benefit of continuity of services for all purposes shall be granted to them. Appropriate orders be passed within a period of eight weeks from now.

6. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J