Sunita Kumari vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:43956)
2023 Latest Caselaw 10810 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 10810 Raj
Judgement Date : 15 December, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sunita Kumari vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:43956) on 15 December, 2023

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2023:RJ-JD:43956]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19010/2023

1.       Sunita Kumari W/o Shri Ajay Kumar, Aged About 35
         Years, (Belt No. 751), R/o Village And Post Lalpur, Tehsil
         Jhunjhunu District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
2.       Tejram Mahawar S/o Shri Ramdhan Mahawar, Aged About
         37   Years,       (Belt     No.     637),       R/o       Village   Jhera   Post
         Chandrana, Tehsil Dausa, District Dausa (Raj.).
3.       Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Kamal Jatav, Aged About 32
         Years, (Belt No. 612), R/o Village And Post Samoochi,
         Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar (Raj.).
4.       Hemraj S/o Shri Deep Chand, Aged About 37 Years, (Belt
         No. 638), R/o Village And Post Dhadhren, Tehsil Bayana,
         District Bharatpur (Raj.).
5.       Suman Bai W/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Gurjar, Aged About 32
         Years, (Belt No. 655), R/o Village And Post Patoli Tehsil
         Mahuwa, District Dausa (Raj.).
6.       Rekha Kumari W/o Shri Vijay Kumar, Aged About 32
         Years, (Belt No. 730/1291), R/o Village Bopiya Post Patan
         Tehsil Neemkathana Distt. Neemkathana (Raj.) Presently
         Posted At Kotputly.
                                                                         ----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, (Jaipur          Range), Jaipur
         (Rajasthan).
4.       Superintendent Of Police, Dausa (Raj.).
5.       Superintendent Of Police, Kotputli Behror (Raj.).
                                                                       ----Respondents


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



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

[2023:RJ-JD:43956] (2 of 3) [CW-19010/2023]

15/12/2023

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

controversy is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this

Court in Nirmal Kumar Khatik & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

& Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1526/2022, decided on

28.01.2022, the order reads as under :-

"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 giving appointment with notional benefits.

In view of the prayer made and taking note of the order dated 13.12.2012 whereby petitioner is giving 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 pursuance to the order dated 13.12.2012.

With the aforesaid, writ petition stands disposed of."

In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with similar directions as given in the case of Dara Singh (supra) "

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, thus, submits that the

petitioners would be satisfied, if their representation is considered

[2023:RJ-JD:43956] (3 of 3) [CW-19010/2023]

and decided by the respondents, after passing a speaking order,

while keeping into consideration the order passed by this Court in

Nirmal Kumar Khatik (supra).

3. In light of such submission, the present petition is disposed

of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation

of the petitioners, while keeping into consideration the order

passed in the case of Nirmal Kumar Khatik (supra) within a period

of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this

order, strictly in accordance with law.