Bhoop Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 4871 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3196/2021

1. Bhoop Singh S/o Ami Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Lalaniya, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

2. Rajendra Singh S/o Dungar Singh Rathore, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Indra Colony, Gali No. 2, Ward No. 27, Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

3. Dinesh Chand Solanki S/o Purakha Chand Solanki, Aged About 42 Years, R.o I-89, Vallabh Garden, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Administrative Reforms (Section - 3) Department, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Chief Engineer And Additional Secretary, Public Works Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Additional Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Bikaner Division, Bikaner.

4. The Superintendient Engineer, Public Works Department, Circle Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.

5. The Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Circle Bikaner, District Bikaner.

6. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Nokha, District Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hansraj Nimbar

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Judgment

22/02/2021

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue

raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment

(2 of 3) [CW-3196/2021]

of this Court in Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan &

Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 7283/2014, decided on 16.07.2014 at Jaipur

Bench and the said judgment has been followed in Krishan Lal &

Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No.

19179/2017, decided on 30.10.2017 at Jaipur Bench. The

petitioners are also entitled to the same relief as granted in the

case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra) and Krishan Lal (supra) claims

learned counsel.

In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by

the petitioners is disposed of with the similar directions as given in

the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra), which read as under:-

"This Court in Suman Bai and Another Vs. State and Others - 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381, held that candidates in lower order of merit cannot become entitled merely because they had approached court earlier. Petitioners had a fresh cause of action for approaching in such situation and their writ petition not barred either as res judicata or as being him in properly constituted. This directed the respondents to treat petitioners senior to respondents, who were in lower order of merit.

It is further contended in the writ petition that in the matter of School Lecturers (English) in the same Department, where appointments were delayed because of the fault of the State authorities, the candidates were accorded appointment from the date the candidates stood lower in merit were appointed and they have been granted all consequential benefits of services.

The petitioners approached the respondents by way of representations for extending them same benefits of service which have been granted to the candidates who stood lower in merit than the petitioners, but till date nothing has been done. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for a direction to the respondents to treat their appointment from the date the candidates lower in merit, were given, with all consequential benefits of service, such as seniority, continuity of service, pay fixation, grant of annual grade increments.

Having regard to the facts of the case, writ petition is disposed of requiring the petitioners to make a representation to respondent no.2 - Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, alongwith a copy of this order, who shall, after verifying the facts stated above, consider and decide the same by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of its

(3 of 3) [CW-3196/2021]

making, addressing the grievance of the petitioners for extending them the relief as prayed for, as the candidates, who stood lower in merit, are getting benefit of higher pay, seniority, annual grade increments and other service benefits including the selection scales. If the respondent no.2 decides to place the petitioners above in seniority than the candidates who stood lower in merit, then the petitioners would be entitled to all benefits of seniority but they would be entitled only to notional benefits."

For the purpose aforesaid, the petitioners shall file

representation before the competent authority giving out the

requisite details along with certified copy of the order instant

within a period of four weeks from today. On receipt of the

representation, the concerned respondent shall decide the same,

in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the

date of receipt of the representation and accord notional benefits

to the petitioners from the date persons similarly situated to

them and lower in merit were given appointment.

Upon consideration of the representation so filed, if

respondents find the case of the petitioners to be covered by the

judgment(s) aforesaid, before giving actual benefits, an

undertaking shall be procured from the petitioners to the effect

that his rights/entitlements shall be subservient to the fate of

the judgment(s) aforesaid and in case the same is reversed or

modified in any manner, they shall also be liable for restitution of

any benefits/emoluments so received.

The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 242-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)