Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhagirath Mal Yadav vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 July, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9211/2021
Bhagirath Mal Yadav S/o Shri Sadhoo Ram Yadav, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Huda Ka Bas, Tehsil Neemkathana, Narsinghpuri,
District Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Rural And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jodhpur, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary
Education, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhan Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) :
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
22/07/2021
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner while submitting that
identical writ petition being SB Civil Writ Petition No.10538/2016 :
Kaptan Singh & Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. has been
disposed of by Jaipur Bench of this Court, vide order dated
09.11.2017, prays that similar order be passed in the present case
also.
(2 of 3) [CW-9211/2021]
2. Hence, identical order is being passed in the present writ
petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset,
submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application
stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Baser v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ petition Number 6707/2007,
decided on 8th February, 2012, observing thus:
"After hearing of the matter at a considerable length,
it is submitted by learned Additional Advocate
General Shri R L Jangid that adequate number of
Vacancies are available with the respondents to
employee meritorious candidates, as a consequent of
process of selection initiated under the
Advertisement Annx-1. It is also pointed out that in a
matter of similar nature i.e. SBCivil Writ Petition no-
3414/2009 this court directed to employ persons who
approached court without making any disturbance
with the appointments already given.
Having considered all the facts and
circumstances of the case I deem it appropriate to
accept the petition for writ with a direction to the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for
the post for which they applied under the
advertisement Anx-1, if they are otherwise eligible
and meritorious. The appointment to the petitioners
may be given from the date appointments were to
other persons as as a consequent to the process of
selection in question. The seniority and all other
benefits including fixation of pay on notional basis in
the event of grant of appointment shall be reckoned
from the date appointments were given to other
persons selected through same process. However
they shall not be entitled for actual payment of wages
for the period concerned. Necessary orders for
compliance of the directions given are required to be
passed by the respondents on or before 31.3.2012."
4. Learned counsel further asserted that despite repeated
representations addressed by the petitioner, the respondents have
not responded to the claim of the petitioner.
(3 of 3) [CW-9211/2021]
5. It is further pointed out that for the present, the petitioners
would be satisfied, if the respondents are directed to consider and
decide his representation within a time frame, in the backdrop of
the adjudication in the case of Ashok Kumar Baser (supra).
6. In view of the limited prayer addressed; the petitioner is
directed to address a representation enclosing copies of the
judgments, which they intend to refer to and rely upon within two
weeks hereinafter.
7. In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid
period, the respondents are directed to consider and decide the
same by a reasoned and speaking order in the backdrop of the
opinion in the case of Ashok Kumar Baser (supra). This exercise
shall be undertaken by the respondents as expeditiously as
possible; preferably within two months from the date of receipt of
the representation along with a certified copy of this order.
8. With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the
writ application stands disposed of.
9. The stay application also stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
113-skm/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
