JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsels at length. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Yashpal Khileri, Deputy Government counsel submits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a recent decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in SBCWP No. 6186 of 2008, Smt. Sunni John & Anr. v. State of Raj. & Ors. decided on 21.10.2009 in which the Coordinate Bench has held as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions. True it is, in lqbal Ahmed Afridi's case (SBCWP No. 2760/1988 decided on 15.2.2000 by Jaipur Bench) (supra) this Court held that in-service candidates, who were admittedly in different Nursing Courses including General Nursing Course should be treated on deputation with full salary, but in the case aforesaid, Rule 9 of the Rules of 1990 was not taken into consideration. The petitioners admittedly availed training as per Rules of 1990 as in-service candidates and sub-rule (ii) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1990 in most ambiguous terms provided that "there shall be no deputation for Government servant, if selected. They shall have to take any leave which is permissible to him/her". In view of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 9 aforesaid, the period in which the petitioners availed training cannot be treated as deputation. If the respondents have treated the period of training as deputation for some other persons, then too, that does not create any right for the petitioners to claim equality, as this Court cannot perpetuate any illegality. In view of the discussions made above, I do not find any merit in this petition for writ. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Govind Mathur), J." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved in the present case relates to recovery of the salary already paid to petitioners during the General Nursing Training Course vide impugned order Annex. 14 dated 19.5.2000. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Govind Mathur), J." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved in the present case relates to recovery of the salary already paid to petitioners during the General Nursing Training Course vide impugned order Annex. 14 dated 19.5.2000. He, therefore, submits that the controversy in hand is not covered by the aforesaid judgment for the following reasons : (i) that the benefit of period of training for which the petitioner was given permission under the provisions of General Nursing Training Course Rules, 1990 & once the petitioner was treated on deputation & the benefit was given to him for this purpose, the same cannot be withdrawn by the respondents; (ii) that the said withdrawal of the benefits given to the petitioner was done without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in breach of principles of natural justice, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained; (iii) that in view of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of D.S. Nathawat v. Raj. Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors., D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1468 of 2006 decided on 3.3.2008 the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed in the present writ petition and the decision of Coordinate Bench in Sunni John case (supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case. 4. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. I.R. Choudhary are untenable for the following reasons. 5. Against the Division Bench decision in the case of D.S. Nathawat (supra) S.L.P. was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17.10.2008, copies of these two orders have been placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following observations while dismissing the S.L.P. "Delay condoned. Though there may be some merit in the contention raised by the State of Rajasthan, we find that the petition has been disposed of in view of the concession by the learned counsel for the State. Hence. leaving the question raised, the special leave petition is dismissed." 6. The said decision of Division Bench Is distinguishable because firstly the same was not only rendered on account of concession of learned counsel for State, Mr. Bhanwari Lal Avasthi, as noted in para no. Hence. leaving the question raised, the special leave petition is dismissed." 6. The said decision of Division Bench Is distinguishable because firstly the same was not only rendered on account of concession of learned counsel for State, Mr. Bhanwari Lal Avasthi, as noted in para no. 3 of the judgment, secondly in para 2 of the judgment the Division Bench has clearly noticed that, '.'The three years training course which he did, has not been treated on deputation nor counted as study leave." Thus, neither the period of training was treated on deputation nor counted as study leave and the Court upheld the contention of the petitioner that period spent by the petitioner for nursing course should be treated as on deputation is legitimate. It may be pointed out immediately here that Rule 9(ii) of 1990 Rules was not considered in the said Division Bench judgment and possibly the same was not brought to its notice by the learned Government Advocate, who conceded before the Division Bench, whereas Rule 9(ii) of the Rules of 1990 specifically negatives that the period of training course for general nursing candidates cannot be treated as on deputation. 7. Rule 9 of the said Rules of 1990 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference : "9. Admission to in-service candidates-(i) In service staff working under the Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department shall be eligible for admission provided they fulfill prescribed qualification. (ii) There shall be no deputation for Government servant, if selected. They shall have to take any leave which is permissible to him/her. (iii) In-service candidates selected for the said course shall have to abide by the rules applicable to other non-service candidates in the matter of discipline, leave attendance etc." 8. In Sunni John's case (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court distinguishing the earlier decision in lqbal Ahmed Ifridi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. . held that in view of Rule 9(ii) of the Rules of 1990 that the period in question cannot be treated as on deputation. The judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Sushil Sharma, Civil Appeal No. 5283 of 2001 referred to by the learned Single Judge in Sunni John's case (supra) has already been extracted in the impugned order Annex. 14 dated 19/5/2008, wherein, the prayer for treating the period of training was not treated on deputation. The judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Sushil Sharma, Civil Appeal No. 5283 of 2001 referred to by the learned Single Judge in Sunni John's case (supra) has already been extracted in the impugned order Annex. 14 dated 19/5/2008, wherein, the prayer for treating the period of training was not treated on deputation. The relevant extract is quoted below for ready reference : "The only question which arises for consideration is whether the doctors like the respondents who take study leave are entitled to get full pay or not. It is not in dispute that prior to amendment in Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 in 1979 the original rule contemplated that whenever an employment on study leave he would be treated as being on deputation and would thereby be entitled to be paid full salary. On 16 June, 1979 rule 112 was amended and as result there of read with rule 97 "whenever an officer went on study leave he was to be entitled to half pay leave only." The respondents went on study leave and claimed full salary on the ground that some other doctors similarly situate had been allowed full salary by regarding them as being on deputation. In view of the aforesaid fact the writ petitions were allowed. Hence, this appeal. Mr. Pallav Sisodia, learned counsel for the respondent draws our attention to an order which had been passed on 13 Nov. 1998 in the case of three other service doctors who while being nominated for filling up available vacancies for studying in the course of Ayurved Vachaspathi (M.D.) were also permitted to work on the existing posting and thereby they become entitled to get full salary. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents discriminatory treatment cannot be meted out by the appellant-State. The rules make it quite clear that any person who goes on a study leave would be entitled to only half the salary. In the present case neither the respondents were sent on deputation nor were they required to continue to discharge their existing duties in addition to the under taking the course of study. This being the position, the respondents were not entitled to receive any salary in addition to one contemplated by rule 112 read with rule 97 as amended in 1979. This being the position, the respondents were not entitled to receive any salary in addition to one contemplated by rule 112 read with rule 97 as amended in 1979. As far as the argument placed on article 14 is concerned, it is now being well settled that two wrongs don't make a right. Merely because some other officer has been given an unwarranted favour can be no ground for the rules being allowed to be violated and payment made out of the public exchequer when it is not due while allowing these appeals, we would also expect the appellate State to see that rules are not circumvented or violated as seen to have been done in cases other than those of the respondents. With these observations, the appeals are allowed and the decision of the High Court are set aside." 9. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the benefits once granted in favour of the petitioner could not be revoked is also untenable. Annex. 5 order dated 29.12.2004 does not say that petitioner will be treated on deputation, on the contrary study leave was sanctioned by the Addl. Director (Administration) in the case of petitioner for the period 7.6.2004 to 6.6.2006. There is no order on record to show that the petitioner was treated as on deputation for the said period of the course. It was only prayer made in the writ petition that Illrd year of said course may be treated as period spent on deputation. That obviously could not be done in view of Rule 9(ii) of the Rules of 1990 quoted above. 10. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was assigned duty to work as Nursing Staff vide Annex. 2 dated 26.7.2002 is also incorrect. Firstly, said order dated 25.7.2002 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Medical and Health Department Gr. III is not in the case of petitioner but it is a general order and secondly, it lays down the guide lines & requirements of Nursing Course itself. It stipulates that on all the Training Centers such trainee Nurses will be in prescribed dress and will put on name plate no such uniform will also work as Nursing Staff. That is the requirement of the course itself and part of such training and it cannot be said that petitioner was so deputed to work as Nursing Staff. It stipulates that on all the Training Centers such trainee Nurses will be in prescribed dress and will put on name plate no such uniform will also work as Nursing Staff. That is the requirement of the course itself and part of such training and it cannot be said that petitioner was so deputed to work as Nursing Staff. The substantive post held by the petitioner was the lower post of Lab Technician, while he was directed to go for the said Nursing Course under Rules of 1990. 11. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that benefit paid cannot be withdrawn without following the principles of natural justice is also misconceived. The payment made for the said period in pursuance of Annex. 13 dated 8.11.2007 was simply contrary to the Rule 9(ii) and the payment made under mistake, can definitely be recovered once it is held that the period spent on training course could not be treated as period on deputation. Rule 9(ii) only prescribed that said period could only be treated as on leave, whatever is due to the petitioner. 12. The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Rule 9(ii) of the Rules of 1990 is ultra vires has also no force as this Court does not find any illegality in the said Rule 9(ii), per se. No detailed arguments were made in this regard to show how this Rule is ultra vires. 13. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the controversy in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of Sunni John (supra) and not by the decision in the case of D.S. Nathawat (supra), as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which appears to be in conflict with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Sharma (supra). 14. Consequently, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed in terms of the aforesaid decision of Coordinate Bench. 15. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******