LALITA KUMARI v. STATE INSTITUTE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (SIHFW)
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: ARUN MONGA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2025-02-12. LALITA KUMARI v. STATE INSTITUTE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (SIHFW). Read the judgment and case details...
Judgment text
[2025:RJ-JD:8542] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4013/2025 Ritu Solankee W/o Shri Vijay Kumar Khatik, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Bigod Tehsil Mandalgarh District Bhilwara Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare (Sihfw), Through Its Director, Jhalana Doongri Colony, Ghat Ki Guni, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302004. 2. Joint Director, Medical And Health Services , Zone Udaipur Rajasthan. 3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bhilwara Rajasthan. 4. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Barmer Rajasthan. ----Respondents Connected with S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4014/2025 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripudaman Singh. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC with Mr. Vivek Sharma. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Order (Oral) 12/02/2025 1. Petitioners herein, inter alia, seek directions to the respondents to accord them posting in their home district according to their merit / preference. 2.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are sanguine that, in case they are allowed to file individual representations qua the grievance raised in their respective petitions and the same are taken up on the administrative side, they will receive favorable treatment. [2025:RJ-JD:8542] (2 of 2) [CW-4013/2025] Therefore, the competent authority may decide the same within a reasonable time, in accordance with law. 3. In view of the aforesaid, without commenting on the merits of the case, the petitions filed by the petitioners are disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the representations (may file fresh, if not already filed) of the petitioners objectively, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 4. It is made clear that the direction to consider the representation shall not be construed as an expression of any opinion, in any manner. 5. Disposed of accordingly. 6.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (ARUN MONGA),J 56 & 57-DhananjayS/Rmathur/-
Source: High Court of Rajasthan. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.