Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hemant Silu And Ors vs State And Ors on 5 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
(1 of 3) [CW-7132/2014]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7132/2014
1. Hemant Silu S/o Shri Surendra Kumar Silu, Aged about 32
years, R/o Inside Dharam nagar Dwar, Near Keval Ram Hospital,
Naya Shahar, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
2. Mohd. Sazid S/o Shri Abdul Hamid, Aged about 37 years, R/o
Gali No.7, Dhobi Talai, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. Dheeraj Singh S/o Shri Dhroji Singh, Aged about 33 years,
R/o Village & Post Hatijar, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Public Works
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Chief Engineer & Additional Secretary, Public Works
Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Mathur
Mr. Lakshya Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bachhawat
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
05/03/2021
1. The matter comes up on board for consideration of second
stay application, which has been moved with a prayer that the
respondents be directed to keep posts vacant in light of judgment
dated 15.02.2021 passed by Jaipur Bench of this Court in SBCWP
No.18144/2015 (Teekan Chand Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.).
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of
the controversy involved, instead of passing any interim direction
(2 of 3) [CW-7132/2014]
on second stay application, with consent of both the parties, the
matter was finally heard.
4. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners inviting
Court's attention towards the recruitment notification dated
18.05.2012 submitted that the petitioners' case is squarely
covered by the adjudication made by Jaipur Bench of this Court in
the case of Teekan Chand Yadav (supra).
5. Learned counsel for the respondents though could not
dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law, however, submitted
that he is not in a position to state, as to whether, petitioners were
provisionally selected or not.
6. In Teekan Chand Yadav (supra) it has been held thus;
"19. Keeping in view the aforesaid and taking
into consideration the facts as noticed above, this writ
petition is allowed. The petitioner who has been placed
in the provisional list and he was called to submit
document verification and medical certificate. After
document verification was over, he would be
considered for appointment against the remaining
posts under the advertisement of 2012. The relief shall
have to be modified in terms of the judgment passed
by the Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap
(supra) as under:
"(i) The benefit of this judgment shall only be
available to those candidates who have approached
this court or whose cases are pending.
(ii) The petitioner would not be entitled to any
backwages;
(iii) The petitioner would be entitled for seniority and
fixation of pay and be placed immediately below the
last candidate who was offered appointment under the
advertisement in the year 2012 in the order of
seniority.
(iv) The petitioner shall be entitled to notional benefits
from the date of such appointments were made to the
other candidates for the purpose of fixation of pay and
seniority. However, the petitioner shall have to be
undergone the probation period as laid down under the
Service Rules. The respondents are directed to comply
with the judgment within a period of 3 months from
today."
20. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
(3 of 3) [CW-7132/2014]
21. All pending applications also shall stand disposed
of."
7. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed
of in terms of judgment dated 15.02.2021, rendered in the case of
Teekan Chand Yadav (supra).
8. Respondents are directed to accord appointments to the
petitioners if they are found meritorious and otherwise eligible in
terms of above referred order.
9. Stay application also stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
169-Rahul/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
