Pramod Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1428 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1428 Raj
Judgement Date : 1 February, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Pramod Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 February, 2022

Bench: Arun Bhansali

(1 of 3) [CW-1737/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1737/2022

1. Pramod Kumar S/o Shri Charan Singh, Aged About 29 Years, Village And Post Mahua, Tehsil Bharatpur District Bharatpur (Raj.)

2. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Mathura Lal Salvi, Aged About 32 Years, Village And Post Durg Kila Tehsil Chittorgarh District Chittorgarh (Raj.)

3. Roshan Lal Gurjar S/o Shri Shiv Lal Gurjar, Aged About 31 Years, Village Bamaniya Post Shambhu Pura, Tehsil Chittorgarh District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

4. Ramniwas Meena S/o Shri Mangal Ram Meena, Aged About 22 Years, Village And Post Dindhol, Tehsil Bassi District Jaipur (Raj.)

5. Amit Kumar Saharawat S/o Shri Hari Ram, Aged About 30 Years, Village And Post Singod Khurd Govindgarh , Tehsil Chomu District Jaipur (Raj.).

6. Lokesh Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Village Nagla Mai Post Mai Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

7. Okesh S/o Shri Raghuveer Jatav, Aged About 27 Years, Village And Post Taronder Tehsil Nagar District Bharatpur (Raj.).

8. Vijay Kumar S/o Shri Preetam Singh, Aged About 28 Years, Village And Post Kherla Tehsil Laxmangarh District Alwar (Raj.).

9. Harvindra Singh Meena S/o Shri Ummed Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Village And Post Dewal Kheri Dhoriya Tehsil Nimbaheda District Chittorgarh ( Raj.).

10. Suneel Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish, Aged About 27 Years, Village Kaimara Post Kharagpur Tehsil Saipau, District Dholpur (Raj.).

11. Brajmohan Meena S/o Shri Moti Lal Meena, Aged About 30 Years, Village And Post Thamawali Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.).

12. Sunil Kumar Acharya S/o Shri Uday Lal Aacharya, Aged About 27 Years, Village And Post Kanti Tehsil Gangrar, District Chittorgarh ( Raj.)

(2 of 3) [CW-1737/2022]

13. Rajesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Chitar Mal, Aged About 31 Years, Village And Post Shri Rampura Tehsil Niwai District Tonk (Raj.).

14. Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Bheru Lal Rawal, Aged About 30 Years, Village And Post Kotdi Kalan , Tehsil Nimbahera District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

15. Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Meena, Aged About 31 Years, Village Nayagaon Post Bachola Tehsil Nainwa, District Bundi (Raj.).

16. Satish Kumar S/o Shri Subh Ram, Aged About 29 Years, Village And Post Fatehpur, Tehsil Bansur District Alwar ( Raj.).

17. Radheshyam Meena S/o Shri Pyara Meena, Aged About 32 Years, Village Meena Ka Jhopra Baldarkha Post Aanwalheda District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

18. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Devi Singh, Aged About 29 Years, Village And Post Deedawli Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

19. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Prahlad Meena, Aged About 30 Years, Village Paprala Post Pach Ki Baori, Tehsil Hindoli District Bundi (Raj.).

20. Shivhari S/o Shri Deewan Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Village And Post Mullaka Indrani Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Inspector General Of Police (Udaipur Range), Udaipur, (Rajasthan.)

4. Superintendent Of Police, Chittorgarh (Raj.).

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :    Mr.Vinod Jhajharia (through VC)
For Respondent(s)            :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

(3 of 3) [CW-1737/2022]

Order

01/02/2022

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the

issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by the

judgment in Dara Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.11973/2012, decided on 17.12.2012.

In the case of Dara Singh (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court, inter-alia, directed as under :-

"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that realizing the mistake, appointment has been given, thus, grievance of petitioner to that extent is redressed, but appointment should have been made effective from the date candidates lesser in merit were given appointment with notional benefits.

In view of the prayer made and taking note of the order dated 13.12.2012 whereby petitioner is given appointment realizing mistake by the respondents, I consider it proper to direct that aforesaid appointment should be treated from the date when lesser meritorious candidates were given. The petitioner would, accordingly, be entitled to the notional benefits and seniority from the date persons with less merit were given appointment. The actual benefits would be allowed from the date of joining pursuant to the order dated 13.12.2012.