Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1637 (RAJ)

Rohit Yadav v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-05-18

ARUN BHANSALI

body2022
JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 30.03.2022 (Annex. 6) issued by respondents No. 7 and 8, whereby following the directions given by the State dated 15.03.2022 (Annex. 5), putting to an end of the working arrangement and deputations, the petitioner has been sent back to the place, from where the petitioner was sent under the working arrangement. 2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that the petitioner was recruited as Nursing Tutor by order dated 19.06.2014. The petitioner, who was posted at GNMTC, Udaipur, under the working arrangement was posted at State Nodal Centre, Udaipur by order dated 21.12.2015 (Annex. 2), on 09.09.2017 the Principal, R.N.T. Medical College, Udaipur directed that as the State Nodal Centre is working under the Nursing College, those working at the State Nodal Centre, would also discharge the work allotted by the College alongwith teaching at the College. 3. Submissions have been made that besides the petitioner, several other employees have been sent to Nursing College under the working arrangement/deputation, however, on account of passing of the order dated 15.03.2022 (Annex. 5), whereby the State by way of a policy has put to end all the working arrangement/deputations, the petitioner has been singled-out for putting to an end his working arrangement. 4. As Ms. Vandana Bhansali, learned AGC had put in appearance on Caveat, specific directions were issued to respond to the said allegation, which aspect has been responded to by indicating that all those who were sent on working arrangement/deputation at the Directorate level, their deputations have been cancelled, and those who were working qua which the petitioner is alleging discrimination, on working arrangement based on the directions issued by the Principal, R.N.T. Medical College for the purpose of working of Nursing College, have not been disturbed. Based on the said submissions, an additional affidavit was directed to be filed, which also has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that from the documents filed by the respondents, it is apparent that despite the fact that the order dated 15.03.2022 (Annex. Based on the said submissions, an additional affidavit was directed to be filed, which also has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that from the documents filed by the respondents, it is apparent that despite the fact that the order dated 15.03.2022 (Annex. 5) was general in nature and was addressed to all, including the Principal of Medical College, the same has not been implemented qua others and the petitioner has been picked-up for putting to an end his working arrangement and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the submissions pertaining to the fact that those who were sent on deputation/working arrangement at Directorate level, they have been affected by order dated 15.03.2022 and those who were working on working arrangement basis under the directions of the Principal, have not been affected. Further submissions have been made that the petitioner is not prejudiced on any account on account of putting an end his working arrangement, inasmuch as the petitioner continues to work at Udaipur instead of Nursing College, he would be working at School of Nursing, which institutions are housed in the same premises, and besides that also, no other prejudice is being caused to the petitioner and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. The facts, which are not in dispute, wherein the petitioner admittedly was working on working arrangement in terms of order dated 21.12.2015 (Annex. 2) and was governed by order dated 15.03.2022 (Annex. 5), whereby the State has taken a policy decision putting to an end all working arrangement/deputations. The challenge laid, based on the alleged discrimination, based on the fact that others also, who were working on working arrangement basis, have not been affected, on account of submissions made by the counsel for the respondents regarding distinction that the petitioner was sent on working arrangement basis at the Directorate level, while the others were working on working arrangement basis at the instructions of the Principal, in view of the fact that said persons were working on substantive basis with Maharana Bhupal Govt. Hospital, Udaipur, which is under the Principal himself, the said orders were issued for ensuring that work continues at the institution, has not been affected, cannot be faulted. 9. Further, the submission made by the counsel for the respondents has substance that by putting to an end the working arrangement of the petitioner, the petitioner is not affected/getting prejudiced on any account, inasmuch as neither he has been transferred outside Udaipur, nor the place of working as such has changed, which aspect has not been denied by the counsel for the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the challenge laid by the petitioner, apparently is academic only. 10. In view of above, no case for interference is made out in the present writ petition, the same is therefore, dismissed.