Chaina Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 9514 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10203/2022

1. Chaina Ram S/o Shri Ram Lal, aged about 30 Years, R/o VPO Nokh, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali, (Rajasthan).

2. Priyanka D/o Shri Keshar Deo Sharma, aged about 37 Years, R/o VPO Ward No. 12, Vishnu Chok, Rajghar Bypass Road (Malsisar), District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).

3. Mukesh Chand Bairwa S/o Shri Chhote Lal Bairwa, aged about 39 Years, R/o Village Mororkala, Post Navalpura, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Rajasthan).

4. Rohitash Singh S/o Shri Kirori Mal, aged about 39 Years, R/o VPO Hetamsr, Tehsil and District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).

5. Raj Kamal Meena S/o Shri Hanuman Sahay Meena, aged about 27 Years, R/o Village Meeno Ki Dhani, Sitarampura, Post Lakhana, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, (Raj.).

6. Shishpal Jat S/o Shri Lalu Ram Jat, aged about 32 Years, R/o Village Charnwas, Post Bhojpura Kall, Via. Jobner, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

7. Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Hari Ram Vishnoi, aged about 39 Years, R/o H.No. 62, Vishnoiyan Ka Bas, Bagawas, Tehsil Bagoda, District Jalore, (Rajasthan).

8. Ravi Kumar Sirawata S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, aged about 31 Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Surya Nagar, Losal, District Sikar (Raj.).

9. Kailash Chandra Meena S/o Shri Girraj Prasad Meena, aged about 37 Years, R/o Village Ganipur, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa (Rajasthan).

10. Mohan Lal Meena S/o Shri Bhagawan Sahay Meena, aged about 31 Years, R/o Village Khijuriya Tiwadiyan, Post Khatepura Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

11. Kamlesh Kumari Meena D/o Shri Ramdev Meena, aged about 34 Years, R/o Village Taranpra, Post Gangithala, Tehsil Jahajpur, District - Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

12. Sandeep Dhaka S/o Shri Vidhyadhar Dhaka, aged about 37 Years, R/o Village Shyopura, Post Tetra, Via Mandawa, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).

(2 of 4) [CW-10203/2022]

13. Babita Raj Meena D/o Shri Banshidhar Meena, aged about 36 Years, R/o VPO Ngal Purohitan, Via Harmada, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

14. Ramesh Kumar Bunkar S/o Shri Durga Prasad Bunkar, aged about 36 Years, R/o VPO Gudlia, Via. Badhal, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

15. Vinita Jaluthriya D/o Shri Nthu Lal Jaluthriya, aged about 27 Years, R/o H. No. D-303, Jagdamba Nagar, Behind Heerapura Power House, Ajmer Road, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.R. Choudhary.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

21/07/2022

This writ petition has been filed by petitioners seeking reliefs

as indicated in the writ petition.

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 are also entitled to the same

(3 of 4) [CW-10203/2022]

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 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."

(4 of 4) [CW-10203/2022]

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, the

petitioners would be entitled to the relief.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 104-DJ/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)