Rajasthan High Court
Sunil Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri ... vs Principal Secretary on 25 November, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3184/2019
Sunil Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Krishan Chand Sharma, Aged
About 42 Years, Resident Of B-58, Himmat Nagar, Bundi Road,
Kota (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Principal Secretary, Elementary Education And Secondary
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Shiksha Sankul,
J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Dy. Director, School Education, Kota, District Kota.
5. Abdul Rashid Kharda Son Of Shri Jamal Mohammad, Aged
About 42 Years, R/o Village And Post Jameetpura, Tehsil
Talera, District Bundi (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Naina Saraf with
Mr. Pritam Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Zakawat Ali, AGC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
25/11/2021
The matter comes up on an application No.1/2021 filed by
the petitioner seeking disposal of the writ petition in view of a
co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court dated 13.08.2020,
Bhagwan Swaroop Pathak & Ors. Vs. Board of Secondary
Education, Bikaner and Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.4001/2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy involved in the instant writ petition wherein, the
(2 of 3) [CW-3184/2019]
petitioner has prayed for same benefits which were extended to
the persons lower in merit than him, who were given appointment
prior to him against the advertisement dated 09.08.1998 on the
post of P.T.I Grade II, is identical with the controversy involved in
case of Bhagwan Swaroop Pathak & Ors. (supra) wherein, it
was held as under:-
"8. Having regard to the facts of the case, writ
petition is disposed of requiring the petitioners
to make a representation to respondent No.1 -
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
petitioner 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.1 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."
He, therefore, prays that the instant writ petition may also
be disposed of in similar terms.
Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the
aforesaid factual as also legal position and submitted that the
instant writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of direction
issued by this Court in case of Bhagwan Swaroop Pathak
(supra).
Taking into consideration the contentions advanced by
learned counsel for the respective parties and the nature of
controversy involved in the matter, this Court deems it just and
proper to dispose of the writ petition in terms directed by this
(3 of 3) [CW-3184/2019]
Court in case of Bhagwan Swaroop Pathak (supra) which shall
apply mutatis mutandis in this case also.
The pending application(s) stands disposed of accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
PRAGATI/9
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
