Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raju Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 2 February, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023/RJJD/003655]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2094/2023
1. Raju Ram S/o Shri Hanuman Ram, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Village And Post Lalasar Dawal, Tehsil Chitlwana,
District Jalore (Rajasthan)
2. Deelip Singh Chauhan S/o Shri Raghuveer Singh, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Manana, Tehsil
Makrana District Nagaur (Rajasthan)
3. Bhoop Singh Nehra S/o Shri Ran Singh Nehra, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Deolawas , Tehsil
Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)
4. Shiv Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Amilal Yadav, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village And Post Gunti, Tehsil Behror, District
Alwar (Rajasthan)
5. Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Indraj Singh, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village Kairwali Post Puranabas, Tehsil
Neemkathana, District Sikar (Rajasthan)
6. Vimlesh Jakhar S/o Shri Amilal Jakhar, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Jakharo Ka Bass Post Khatehpura, Tehsil
Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)
7. Vijaypal Bhadhala S/o Shri Bhairun Singh Bhadhala, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Village Ganeshpura Post Dookiya ,
Tehsil Dantaramgarh District Sikar (Rajasthan)
8. Prakash Gadhawal S/o Shri Tansukh Gadhawal, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Molyasi ,tehsil Dhod
District Sikar (Rajasthan)
9. Pooran Mal Kumawat S/o Shri Kajor Mal Kumawat, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o Village Fatehpura (Bhomiyan) Post
Gurara ,tehsil Khandela District Sikar(Rajasthan)
10. Jugal Kishore S/o Shri Bhoma Ram, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Village And Post Sangliya Tehsil Dantaramgarh,
District Sikar (Rajasthan)
11. Pinkesh Kumar S/o Shri Sohan Lal Verma, Aged About 3
Years, R/o Plot No Parwati Colony Near Chetak Bhatta
Goner Road Post Jamdoli , Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
12. Deshraj Arya S/o Shri Prahlad Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Dhani Bhanawali Ward No. 4, Shrimadhopur
District Sikar (Rajasthan)
[2023/RJJD/003655] (2 of 4) [CW-2094/2023]
13. Lokesh Kumar Saini S/o Shri Ghanshyam Saini, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Tata Kua Todabhim, District Karauli
(Rajasthan)
14. Mohan Lal Saini S/o Shri Kalu Ram Saini, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Village And Post Rundal, Tehsil Aamer, District
Jaipur (Rajasthan)
15. Khagendra Singh S/o Shri Bachchu Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Village Naglafoujdar Post Bahaj, Tehsil Deeg,
District Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
16. Rohitashwa Kumar S/o Shri Gopal Lal, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village And Post Dhawali, Tehsil Shahpura,
District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
17. Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Jay Singh, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Village Basna Post Holawas , Tehsil Bansur, District
Alwar (Raj.)
18. Ravindra S/o Shri Omprakash Swami, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village And Post Dalpatpura, Tehsil
Neemkathana District Sikar(Rajasthan)
19. Sanwar Mal Jakhar S/o Shri Shobha Ram Jakhar, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Village Dissa Post Bagawash Tehsil
Kishangarh Renwal Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)
20. Manohar Lal Bairwa S/o Shri Mahadev Prasad, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Village And Post Dhani Pili Ka Khana Tehsil
Lawan Distt. Dausa (Raj.)
21. Sunil Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Mohar Singh Yadav, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Village Balawas Post Ratanpura Tehsil
Bansur Distt. Alwar (Raj.)
22. Jaisingh Yadav S/o Shri Rohitashwa, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village Mundli Post Hazipur Tehsil Bansur Distt.
Alwar (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. Superintendent Of Police, Jaipur , (Raj)
[2023/RJJD/003655] (3 of 4) [CW-2094/2023]
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Jhajharia
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
02/02/2023
1. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that
the issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by the
judgment rendered in the case of Dara Singh v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11973/2012)
decided on 17.12.2012.
2. In the case of Dara Singh (supra), a coordinate 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 given appointment with notional
benefits.
In view of the prayer made and taking note of
the order dated 13.12.2012 whereby petitioner is
given 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 pursuant to the
order dated 13.12.2012.
With the aforesaid, writ petition stands disposed
of."
[2023/RJJD/003655] (4 of 4) [CW-2094/2023]
3. 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).
4. 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.
5. The stay application also stands disposed of
accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
270-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
