Thanaram Gehlot vs The State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 9297 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8382/2022

1. Thanaram Gehlot S/o Jeevraj Gehlot, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 335, Agarwal Colony, Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

2. Laxmi Kumari D/o Khooma Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/ o Ward No. 32, Shastri Colony, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

3. Prateek Katara S/o Ranchod Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/ o Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Simalwara, Tehsil Simalwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

4. Sadar Hussain S/o Shokat Ali, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Jandawali, 6 Chak Jdw, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

5. Mamta Bai Jat D/o Ramkaran Jat, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vpo Palda, Tehsil And District Tonk, Rajasthan.

6. Rinku S/o Naresh Kumar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Sanoda, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

7. Suresh Kumar Choudhary S/o Kishan Lal Choudhary, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Govindpura, Post Khelniya, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk, Rajasthan.

8. Vikram Kumawat S/o Gopal Lal Kumawat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Near Govt. Hospital, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

9. Mohammad Raeesh Ansari S/o Abdul Gaffar Ansari, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Aabapura Gate, Juniya, Tehsil Kekri, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

10. Buddhi Prakash Khatik S/o Lala Ram Khatik, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vpo Shiv Nagar Para, Tehsil Kekri, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

11. Basant Kumar Kumawat S/o Ramkishan Kumawat, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ganpati Colony, Sawar Road, Kekri, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

12. Devkishan Dhakar S/o Shri Ram Dhakar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Devmand, Post Piplaj, Tehsil Sawar, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director (Non-Gazette), Medical And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Choudhary.

                                            (2 of 3)               [CW-8382/2022]




             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                      Order

18/07/2022

Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks withdrawal of the

writ petition for petitioners No. 5 to 12 with liberty to approach

the jurisdictional Court.

In view of the submissions made, the petition is dismissed

qua the petitioners No. 5 to 12 with liberty as aforesaid.

For the petitioners No. 1 to 4, it is submitted by learned

counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners No. 1

to 4 are 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 petitioners No. 1 to 4 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.

(3 of 3) [CW-8382/2022]

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."

The order has been passed based on the submissions made

in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the

veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,

the averments made therein are found to be correct, only the

petitioners No. 1 to 4 would be entitled to the relief.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 131-PKS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)