Gauri Shankar Panchariya vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 16077 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 16077 Raj
Judgement Date : 23 October, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Gauri Shankar Panchariya vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 October, 2021

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14714/2021

Gauri Shankar Panchariya S/o Shri Banshi Lal, Aged About 28
Years, By Caste- Brahmin, R/o Ward No. 16, Mahaveer Basti,
Deshnok, Bikaner. Subject Sanskrit, Employee Id-
Rjcr201812036711
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District-
Bikaner.
3. The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District-
Bikaner.
----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Singh
For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

23/10/2021

In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant

caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court,

for the safety of all concerned.

Learned counsel for the petitioner 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, and therefore, the

(Downloaded on 23/10/2021 at 09:58:59 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-14714/2021]

petitioner is also entitled to the same relief as granted in the case

of Manoj Khandelwal (supra) and Krishan Lal (supra).

In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by

the petitioner 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 benefit of higher pay, seniority, annual grade
increments and other service benefits including the selection

(Downloaded on 23/10/2021 at 09:58:59 PM)
(3 of 3) [CW-14714/2021]

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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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