Sukhveer Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 4630 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4373/2022

1. Sukhveer Singh S/o Gurcharan Singh, aged about 33 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Near Gurudwara, 31 Mod Khothan Wali, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

2. Mohan Lal S/o Manphool Ram, aged about 36 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Chak 4, K.S.R. (Shyopura), 4 KSR, VPO Ramsara Jakhran, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

3. Shishpal S/o Chuna Ram, aged about 36 Years, R/o VPO 5 Cm, Bhopalpura, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

4. Rakwinder Singh S/o Sohan Singh, aged about 35 Years, R/o Prem Nagar, Ward No. 31, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

5. Rajesh S/o Balram, aged about 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 16, 11 DLP, VPO Dholipal, Tehsil and District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

6. Ravi Prakash S/o Babu Lal Sharma, aged about 38 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Bhagatpura Road, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

7. Pala Ram S/o Ram Chand, aged about 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Village Nandewali, Dhani P.O. Amar Singh Wala, Tehsil Pilibangan, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

8. Vinod Kumari D/o Satya Narayan, aged about 33 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Khara Chak, Kanewla, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

9. Mahender Kumar S/o Raja Ram, aged about 32 Years, R/o Ward No. 8, VPO and Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

10. Kuldeep Sirawata S/o Ram Kumar, aged about 38 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, VPO Dholipal, Tehsil and District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

11. Sunil Kumar S/o Raja Ram, aged about 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 6, H. No. 1/498, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

(2 of 4) [CW-4373/2022]

12. Anil Verma S/o Rameshwer Lal Verma, aged about 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 08, Near Atal Sewa Kendra, 5 KNJ, VPO Makkasar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

13. Vinod Kumar S/o Satpal, aged about 33 Years, R/o Ward No. 01, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

14. Gurpyar Singh S/o Gurmel Singh, aged about 31 Years, R/o W. No. 09, 113, Dharamshala Ke Pass, Hirnawali, Tehsil Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

15. Jagjeet Singh S/o Jasveer Singh, aged about 33 Years, R/ o Ward No. 13, Rawatsar, Near Govt. Girls School, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

16. Amit Kumar Bishnoi S/o Subhash Chander, aged about 32 Years, R/o Gali No. 5, Ward No. 24, Sangaria, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

17. Rajpal Singh S/o Tara Singh, aged about 30 Years, R/o Jhamber, Ward No. 6, Tehsil and District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Medical and Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director (Non Gazzeted), Medical and Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hansraj Nimbar.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

28/03/2022

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

(3 of 4) [CW-4373/2022]

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

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

(4 of 4) [CW-4373/2022]

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, the

petitioners would be entitled to the relief.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 86-DJ/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)