PREM PRAKASH SUBODH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners by way of these writ petitions have prayed as under:-

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are candidates who applied under the advertisement dated 26.02.2013 for the post of Nurse Gr.II and had been placed in the select list in the advertisement which was published in 2013. There were in all 15773 vacancies advertised for Nurse Gr.II and 12278 vacancies were advertised for Public Health Nurse. The State Government vide Notification dated 28.06.2013 issued a separate advertisement on 10.07.2013 for regular selection on several posts which were created by adding a separate cadre under NRHM under the Rules of 1965 which did not include the post of Nurse Gr.II. Lateron, taking a policy decision, the NRHM posts which were advertised vide advertisement dated 10.07.2013 were abolished and, therefore, the advertisement was withdrawn. However, in the aforesaid process, there was no decision taken to abolish the post of Nurse Gr.II which was advertised in 2013 and, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to be considered against the posts which had been advertised in 2013 and the contention that the posts of Nurse Gr.II had been abolished was erroneous and the petitioners ought to have been considered against those posts. Learned Counsel has relied on the Note Sheet which has been produced as Annexure-12 to contend that the posts which were advertised in 2013 were actually the posts under the Medical and Health Services alone and were not under the NRHM. It was further submitted that the earlier judgment which was passed by the coordinate Bench in S.B.C.W.P. No. 15961/2015-Rajkumari v. State of Rajasthan and other connected writ petitions, the State Government did not come out with correct facts which resulted in a finding given by the Court that the reduction of posts in the advertisement was not required to be interfered with and there was no illegality committed. However, in view of the facts which have come on record now, it is apparent that the Court was mislead at that relevant time and there were no NRHM posts.

(3.) Keeping in view the said aspects, this Court had issued notices and the Additional Government Counsel appearing at that relevant time furnished an undertaking that the result of recruitment process shall not be declared on 19.07.2018. The said undertaking was directed to be continued subsequently by this Court with directions to the State to file its reply. This Court had also asked during proceedings to file affidavit with regard to the exact decision which was taken in relation to the reduction of posts.