Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prahlad Jangir (Belt No. 10830) vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:44289) on 18 December, 2023
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:44289]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19373/2023
1. Prahlad Jangir (Belt No. 10830) S/o Shri Ramsukh Lal
Jangir, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Bithura Post
Sanwrad, Tehsil Ladnun, District Didwana Kuchaman
(Rajasthan).
2. Mahendra Kumar Gurjar (Belt No. 11342) S/o Shri Ramji
Lal Gurjar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post
Dhigariya, Tehsil Lawan District Dausa (Rajasthan).
3. Karan Jat (Belt No. 10657) S/o Shri Shrawan Lal, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Village And Post Harmara, Tehsil
Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Rajasthan).
4. Nandlal Yadav (Belt No. 10918) S/o Shri Mohan Lal Yadav,
Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village And Post Sundarpura,
Tehsil Kishangarh Renwal, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
5. Jitendra Harsolia (Belt No. 11452) S/o Shri Jagdish
Harsolia, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Jodhpura Post
Tankarda, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
6. Suresh Kumar Yadav (Belt No. 10802) S/o Shri Ram
Kunwar Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post
Asti Kalan Via Badhai, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur,
(Rajasthan).
7. Manmohan Singh (Belt No. 11145) S/o Shri Banwari Lal
Meena, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Patarkhera Post
Moukhera Tehsil Bajupara, District Dausa (Rajasthan).
8. Jaikrishan Khedia (Belt No. 11149) S/o Shri Heeralal
Khedia, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village And Post
Sitapura, Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
9. Amit Kumar Bairwa (Belt No. 11447) S/o Shri Mangal
Chand Bairwa, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village And Post
Ugariyawas Tehsil Mozamabad Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
10. Vikram Yadav (Belt No. 11455) S/o Shri Ramswaroop,
Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Karnisagar Post
Chimanpura Tehsil Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
11. Naveen (Belt No. 11296) S/o Shri Omprakash, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o 16-A Balaji Vihar 35, Near Todi Mod,
Harmada, Jaipur (Raj.).
12. Kailash Meena (Belt No. 11429) S/o Shri Chanda Lal
Meena, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Kayampura Post
(Downloaded on 19/12/2023 at 09:51:19 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:44289] (2 of 3) [CW-19373/2023]
Mansrovar Tehsil Sanganer Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
----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. Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur, (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Jhajharia
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
18/12/2023
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
[2023:RJ-JD:44289] (3 of 3) [CW-19373/2023]
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) "
Learned counsel for the petitioners, thus, submits that the
petitioners would be satisfied, if his representation is considered 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).
In light of such submission, the present petition is disposed of
with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the
petitioner, while keeping into consideration the order passed in the case
of Nirmal Kumar Khatik (supra) within a period of 90 days from today,
strictly in accordance with law.
All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
709-Ravi Khandelwal
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
