Anil Kumar Goyal vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7904 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 7904 Raj
Judgement Date : 22 March, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Anil Kumar Goyal vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 March, 2021

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

(1 of 3) [CW-4564/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4564/2021

1. Anil Kumar Goyal S/o Shri Shambhu Dayal Goyal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o House No. 23, Madhuvan Colony, Kisan Marg, Barkat Nagar, Jaipur, Dist. Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Vinayak Tiwari S/o Shri Govind Prasad Tiwari, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Tiwari Sadan, Behind Jain Temple, Chhawani, Dist. Kota, Raj.

3. Vishnu Kumar Sain S/o Kailash Chand Sain, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Todadhama, Post Lalpura, Tehsil Lasot, Dist. Dausa, Raj.

4. Hemant Kumar S/o Pappu Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vpo Berkhera, Tehsil Mahawa, Dist. Dausa, Raj.

----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, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Kota, District Kota , Rajasthan.

5. The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

6. The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Tanwar Singh


                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
                                      Order
22/03/2021

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue

raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment

(2 of 3) [CW-4564/2021]

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, 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

(3 of 3) [CW-4564/2021]

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.