Sanjeev Prakash Sharma,J. - (1.) The case of the petitioners is that where all those who are holding Degree of BDS are covered by the law as laid down by this court in the case of Raghvendra Agarwal & Others Versus The State of Rajasthan & Others; SBCWP No.10342/2020 and other connected writ petitions decided on 01.10.2020, wherein this court has held as under:- "(20) In the opinion of this Court, a judicial review of an advertisement issued by the State would be limited to the aspect as to whether the said advertisement issued by the authority is in accordance with the rules laid down by the concerned State authority or the appointing authority. (21) Thus, while examining the advertisement dated 31/08/2020 and the qualifications laid down there under for appointment as CHO, the guidelines laid down by the National Health Mission would have to be looked into. (22) While learned counsel for the petitioners have pointed out that in the National Health Policy of 2017, it was provided that for the post of Mid Level Health Provider AYUSH doctors can be considered, it appears that a departure has been made by the appointing authority while issuing the Latest Operational Guidelines under the'AYUSHMAN BHARAT' of National Health Mission and as noted above, under Section 4, the qualifications laid down for CHO have been limited to B.Sc. in Community Health or Nurse (GNM or B.Sc.) or Ayurveda Practitioner (BAMS) trained and certification. Thus, the second condition of being duly registered with the concerned council, the non-inclusion of BHMS qualification or other qualifications in related health subjects under sub- section 4 is not under challenge before this Court. (23) In view of above, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 could not and would not add some new qualifications for the post of CHO at the askance of the petitioners. (24) Neither this Court is having the infrastructure nor the jurisdiction to examine as to what can be the exact qualification for a particular post. (25)................ (26)................ (27)................ (28) Keeping in view above, all these writ petitions claiming equivalence and consideration for participation in the selection process are found to be devoid of merit and the same are accordingly dismissed. No costs."
(2.) Keeping in view the above, the petitioners' case for participation in the selection process for appointment on the post of Community Health Officer is not made out. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.;