Leeladhar Paliwal vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2792 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2792 Raj
Judgement Date : 6 April, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Leeladhar Paliwal vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 6 April, 2023

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2023/RJJD/009168]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3971/2023

1. Leeladhar Paliwal S/o Sh. Surajmal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Sutharon Ki Dhani, Post Chheela Tehsil Lohawat, Dist. Jodhpur.

2. Smt. Kanta Parihar W/o Sh. Dalpat Singh Chawra D/o Shri Ram Kumar Palihar, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Arya Nagar, Mahamandir, Jodhpur.

3. Smt. Sangita W/o Sh. Tarun Kumar D/o Om Prakash, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 15 Krishna Kunj Parvati Nagar, Ratanada, Jodhpur.

4. Smt. Usha W/o Permanand, Aged About 54 Years, R/o 10/b Shri Ram Nagar, Jodhpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

4. The Joint Director, School Education Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.

5. The Joint Director, School Education Ajmer Division, Ajmer.

6. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jodhpur.

7. The District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Jodhpur.

8. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Ajmer.

9. The District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Nagaur.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh &
                                   Mr. Himmat Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s)            :





 [2023/RJJD/009168]                   (2 of 4)                    [CW-3971/2023]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

06/04/2023

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. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief as

granted in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra) and Krishan Lal

(supra) claim the petitioners.

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.

[2023/RJJD/009168] (3 of 4) [CW-3971/2023]

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."

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

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 the

petitioners and lower in merit were given appointment.

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