Babu Lal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14891 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18526/2022

1. Babu Lal S/o Sh. Bhera Ram, Aged About 45 Years, Village And Post Gingala Vaya Chadi, Tehsil Osian, Jodhpur, At Present Posted In Govt. Senior Secondary School, Silli, Osian, Dist. Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

2. Hukma Ram Choudhary S/o Hira Lal, Aged About 50 Years, Vpo Salwa Khurd Post Pipar Road Bhopal Garh Jodhpur.

3. Nihal Singh Yadav S/o Indraj Yadav, Aged About 50 Years, Vpo Bawad Sakhatpura, Teh. Mundawar, Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan.

4. Mukna Ram Bishnoi S/o Shri Dola Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 48 Years, Village Fatehsar, Post Satheran Dist. Nagaur, Rajasthan.

5. Bhagwan Singh S/o Dau Singh, Aged About 45 Years, Village Tetari Post Samaliya, Teh. Bhim, Dist. Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

6. Ummed Singh S/o Bishamber Dayal Yadav, Aged About 52 Years, Village Post Bhungra Ahir, Teh. Mundawar, Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan.

7. Shish Ram S/o Ranjit Singh, Aged About 52 Years, Vpo Badet, Teh. Malsisar, Dist. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

8. Chetram Yadav S/o Prabhu Dayal Yadav, Aged About 55 Years, By Pass Road, Ward No. 20 Kherli Town, Teh. Kathumar, Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan.

9. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Jai Lal, Aged About 53 Years, Village Bass Govindsingh Post Nuhand, Dist. Churu, Rajasthan.

10. Bhanwar Lal S/o Pitha Ram, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Village Vijaypura, Po. Rulyana Mali, Block Laxmangarh, Dist. Sikar, Rajasthan.

11. Indraj Singh S/o Purnmal, Aged About 49 Years, Jaldhari Nagar, Ward No. 56, Piprali Road Sikar, Rajasthan.

12. Krishan Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ramavtar Yadav, Aged About 46 Years, Village Kalyanpura, Po. Kankardopa, Teh. Behror, Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan.

13. Radhe Shyam S/o Hunata Ram, Aged About 53 Years, Vpo

(2 of 4) [CW-18526/2022]

Bain, Teh. Taranagar, Dist. Churu, Rajasthan.

14. Bhanwar Lal Bhadiyar S/o Bhera Ram Bhadiyar, Aged About 51 Years, Village Khari Kalla, Post Palasani, Teh. Jodhpur, Dist. Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

15. Ramawatar Gujar S/o Birbal Ram, Aged About 54 Years, Village Charanwas, Post Pratappura, Teh And Dist. Jhunjhunu.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of School Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariate, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Department Of Secondary Education, Bikaner.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Jai Naveen



                     JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                     Order

19/12/2022

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.

(3 of 4) [CW-18526/2022]

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, 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

(4 of 4) [CW-18526/2022]

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 of the petitioners to be covered by the

judgment(s) aforesaid, before giving actual benefits, an

undertaking shall be procured from the petitioners to the effect

that his 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, they shall also be liable for restitution of

any benefits/emoluments so received.

5. The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 189-A.Arora/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)