Raju Solanki vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 6810 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6810 Raj
Judgement Date : 9 March, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Raju Solanki vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 March, 2021

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17272/2018

Salim Mohammed Sheikh S/o Mohammad Ibrahim Sheikh, Aged About 47 Years, L-8 Gandhi Nagar, Mallatalayi, Udaipur (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary To Government, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Udaipur, Distt.

Udaipur (Raj.).

4. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Badgaon, Dist. Udaipur (Raj.).

----Respondents Connected With (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6/2019 Raju Solanki S/o Amba Lal Solanki, Aged About 35 Years, Plot No. 733/54, Pulla, Teh. Girwa, Udaipur (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary To Government, Rural Development, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Additional Commissioner Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Udaipur, Distt.

Udaipur (Raj.).

4. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Badgaon, Dist. Udaipur (Raj.).

                                                                     ----Respondents




                                           (2 of 4)                     [CW-17272/2018]

(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27/2019 Vibha Jain W/o Hemant Somiya, Aged About 40 Years, R/o No. 3 Mahaveer Departmental Store, Vaishali Apartment, Near Hiran Magri, Udaipur (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary To Government, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Additional Commissioner Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Udaipur, Distt.

Udaipur (Raj.).

4. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Badgaon, Dist. Udaipur (Raj.).

----Respondents (4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18966/2018

1. Vinod Harsh S/o Shri Dau Lal Harsh, Aged About 40 Years, Teliwada, New Sec. School Ki Gali, Bikaner, Dist- Bikaner. Raj.

2. Kamal Banthia S/o Shri Ratanlal Banthia, Aged About 35 Years, Raja Banthia Ki Gali, Banthia Ka Chowak, Bikaner, Raj.

3. Seema M Rathore D/o Shri Mansukh Bhai Rathore, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 6 G 1 Pawanpuri, South Extension, Bikaner, Dist. Bikaner. Raj.

4. Snehalata Soni D/o Shri Ramchandra Soni, Aged About 38 Years, W/o Dileep Kumar, R/o Ward No. 15, Hanuman Mandir Ke Piche, Maan Ji Ki Maali Well, Sardarsahar, Churu, Raj.

5. Eesha Khatri D/o Shri Chetan Das Khetri, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 51, Rad, Bazar, Pathano Ka Mohalla, Bikaner, Dist. Bikaner. Raj.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

(3 of 4) [CW-17272/2018]

2. The Secretary, To The Government And Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Priyank Kewalia for Mr. Vipul Singhvi Mr. Om Prakash Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay for Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

09/03/2021

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the

controversy involved in the present writ petitions is squarely

covered by a judgment dated 01.09.2015, passed by this Court in

a batch of writ petitions, led by SB Civil Writ Petition No.144/2015

(Babu Lal Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).

2. Mr. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents, is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position

of fact and law.

3. In the judgment of Babu Lal Meena (supra), this Court has

held thus:-

"20. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the instant writ petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed. The respondents shall allow the petitioners to join on their respective posts pursuant to their selection as L.D.Cs. in the questioned direct recruitment process of the year 2013. However,

(i) such of the petitioners who did not apply for extension of time shall not be entitled to join the post;

(ii) the petitioners shall not be entitled to claim seniority over and above the candidates who have already joined their posts

(4 of 4) [CW-17272/2018]

pursuant to their selection. Their names shall be placed at the bottom of the select list;

(iii) the petitioners shall be entitled to notional benefits from the date of the appointment order till the date of their joining. They shall join their respective posts within a period of two months from the date of this order, failing which their appointment shall stand cancelled automatically."

4. Petitioners have admittedly joined. Hence, following the

judgment in the case of Babu Lal Meena (supra), the present writ

petitions are allowed. The petitioners are held entitled for notional

benefits from the date of appointment order till the date of their

joining.