Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dharmendra Chanchlani vs The State Of Rajasthan on 10 March, 2021

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4378/2021

1. Dharmendra Chanchlani S/o Shri Ramchandra Chanchlani, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Choubisa Gali, Brampole Road, Shastri Circle, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Naveen Kumar Mathur S/o Shri Manan Bihari Mathur, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Mohalla Bheekam Saiyad, Vaidh Pari, Alwar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

3. Raju Khan S/o Shri Abdul Rahman, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Bohara Colony, Kekri, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Ramesh Chand Sharma S/o Shri Har Sahay Sharma, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Post Pada, Naya Gaon, Machari, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

5. Pradeep Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Station Road, Rajgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

6. Rekha Sharma W/o Shri Dinesh Nandan Sharma, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Purohit Building, 26/267, Civil Line, Alwar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

7. Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Sharma, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 27, Near Shiv Mandir, Moti Nagar, Vistar Janta Colony, Mungska, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

8. Dinesh Chand Sharma S/o Shri Vijay Narain Sharma, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Mudgal Bhawan, Back Of Mahtab Singh Ka Nohara, Alwar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

9. Rajendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Jaisingh Sharma, Aged About 53 Years, R/o 118, Scheme-4, Alwar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

10. Manju Mishra D/o Shri Ram Mohan Mishra, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 4E-233, Shastri Nagar, Amer, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

11. Munir Mohammed S/o Shri Nazir Khan, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Jailor Ka Makan, New Basti, Lohakhan, Ward No. 51, Ajmer, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

12. Omprakash Gahloat S/o Late Shri Ramlal Gahloat, Aged About 56 Years, R/o 316A/36, Harijani Wali Gali, Mita Kuwa Ke Pass, Lohakhan, Ajmer, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

(2 of 4) [CW-4378/2021]

13. Chakravarti Sen S/o Shri Shanti Lal, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Kaysth Mohalla, Kishangarh, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

14. Madhu W/o Shri Ashwani Kumar, Aged About 53 Years, R/o 85, Danmal Mathur Colony, Gulab Badi, Ajmer, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

15. Rajesh Kumar Saxena S/o Shri Prahlad Swaroop Saxena, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 1-G-8, Housing Board Colony, J.p. Nagar Madar, Ajmer, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

16. Farid Ahmed S/o Shri Said Ahmed, Aged About 58 Years, R/o 358, Gandhi Chowk, Nasirabad, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

17. Rajkumar Kumawat S/o Shri Baluram Kumawat, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 43/25, Subji Mandi Kaiser Ganj, Ajmer, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

18. Mahesh Chand S/o Shri Ramesh Chand, Aged About 55 Years, R/o C-117, Riico Housing Colony, Ajmer Road, Beawar, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

19. Sarvar Jangid S/o Shri Prabhati Lal Jangid, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Village Machari, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

20. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal S/o Shri Inderlal, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Mehatab Singh Ka Nohara, Near Revadmal Dharmshala, Alwar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principle Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Hansraj Nimbar
For Respondent(s)        :



                    JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                    Order





                                           (3 of 4)               [CW-4378/2021]

10/03/2021

1. 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.

2. 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,

(4 of 4) [CW-4378/2021]

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."

3. 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.

4. 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.