Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kamlesh Paliwal vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 January, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 134/2021
1. Kamlesh Paliwal S/o Fateh Lal Paliwal, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Village Semtal Post Majawadi Tehsil Gogunda
District Udaipur Rajasthan. At Present Working As A
Senior Teacher At Govt. Senior Secondary School
Fatehpur District Rajsamand. (Subject Sanskrit) Empl. Id
Rjra201831021323.
2. Yogesh Akhadi S/o Natwar Lal Akhadi, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Post Bhiluda, Tehsil - Sagawara District
Dungarpur. At Present Working As A Teacher At Govt.
Senior Secondary School Surata Dungarpur (Subject
Sanskrit) Empl. Id Rjct201811025635.
3. Neeta Vaishanve D/o Satyanarayan, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o Krishnvatika 3, Madhuvan Colony, Chittorgarh. At
Present Working As A Senior Teacher At Govt. Senior
Secondary School Bhawaliya District Chittorgarh. (Subject
Sanskrit) Empl. Id Rjct201811020335.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur Zone,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. The District Education Officer Secondary, Rajsamand.
6. The District Education Officer Secondary, Chittorgarh.
7. The District Education Officer Secondary, Dungarpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Ojha for
Mr. Ram Dev Potalia
(2 of 3) [CW-134/2021]
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
13/01/2021
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue
raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment
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,
(3 of 3) [CW-134/2021]
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 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(s) of the petitioner (s) to be covered by
the judgment(s) aforesaid, before giving actual benefits, an
undertaking shall be procured from the concerned petitioner(s) to
the effect that their 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, he/she shall also be liable for
restitution of any benefits/emoluments so received.
The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
42-A.Arora/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
