Nirmaljit Kaur, J. - (1.) THE prayer in the present writ petition is for a direction to consider the petitioner as voluntary retired from service with effect from 31.12.2014.
(2.) THE facts in short are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Medical Officer vide Order dated 27.05.1998. He served at various placed on the said post from time to time and presently, he is serving on the post of Junior Specialist (Medicine) at Government Community Health Center, Shivganj, District Sirohi. The Panchayat Raj Elections were announced somewhere in the last week of November, 2014. The petitioner immediately moved an application dated 18.12.2014 seeking voluntary retirement in order to enable him to contest the said election. However, the respondent - Joint Secretary to the Government, Medical & Health (Grout -2) Department, Jaipur vide his communication dated 31.12.2014 informed the C.M.H.O. that his application for voluntary retirement has been rejected by the State Government on account of paucity of doctors. Thereafter, the respondent - C.M.H.O. informed the petitioner about the same on 08.01.2015. Without waiting for any further time, the petitioner challenged rejection of his voluntary retirement by filing the present writ petition on 17.01.2015. The same came up for hearing before this Court on 23.01.2015. Notices were issued and the Additional Government Counsel appearing for the respondents was directed to accept notice, who prayed for time to file reply. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that time to file the nomination form has been extended only uptil 29.01.2015. Taking into account the urgency, the matter was adjourned for 28.01.2015. Today, learned counsel for the respondents prays for still more time to file reply. The controversy involved in the present case has already been decided by this Court in the case of Dr. Kalpana Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4526/2014) decided on 16.12.2014. This Court is, therefore, bound by its' own judgment. Thus, the matter being squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Dr. Kalpana Singh (supra) and also on account of the paucity of time looking to the urgency in the matter, this Court does not deem it necessary to grant any further time to the respondents to file reply.
(3.) IT is evident from the Order dated 31.12.2014 that the application of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground of paucity of doctors.;