Bhanwar Lal Godara vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1341 Raj

[2023/RJJD/003998]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4479/2022

1. Rakesh Kumar Meena S/o Jagdish Prasad Meena, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Rawat Bass, Machari, Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan.

2. Okesh Meena S/o Hajari Lal Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Near Railway Line Shiv Colony Hindaun, Dist. Karauli, Rajasthan.

3. Dinesh Chand Meena S/o Prithwi Raj Meena, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Narauli, Dist. Karauli, Rajasthan.

4. Kamalesh Kumar Meena S/o Narain Lal Meena, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Meena Colony, Dausa, Dist. Dausa, Rajasthan.

5. Rajeev Meena S/o Bharat Lal Meena, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 52 Village Tikhuti, Kala Gurha, Dist. Karauli, Rajasthan.

6. Roop Singh S/o Radhe Lal Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Sengarpura Looloj, Dist. Karauli, Rajasthan.

7. Bahadur Singh S/o Chunni Lal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Kirtan, Churu, Dist. Churu, Rajasthan.

8. Jagdish Prasad Meena S/o Chotu Ram Meena, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Bhawpura, Post Bainada, Vaya Bassi, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Dist. Jaipur.

9. Mahesh Chand Meena S/o Kailash Chand Meena, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Kharli Kakrala, Dist. Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.

10. Sunil Kumar S/o Hanuman Meena, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Rambas, Post Hatundi, Tehsil Mundawar, Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan.

11. Sumer Singh Meena S/o Babu Lal Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Ganwari Mena Danalpur, Dist. Karauli, Rajasthan.

12. Surendra Singh Meena S/o Kedar Lal Meena, Aged About 35 Years, R/o VPO Jhareda, Tehsil Hindaun City, Dist. Karauli, Rajasthan.

13. Durga Lal Meena S/o Ram Lal Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 27 Rathore Gali, Goli Gogunda Arain, Dist. Ajmer, Rajasthan.

[2023/RJJD/003998] (2 of 6) [CW-4479/2022]

----Petitioners Versus

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

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

3. The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4730/2022

1. Bhanwar Lal Godara S/o Banna Ram Godara, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of VPO Bhasina, Sujangarh, District Churu (Presently Posted As Teacher Grade III At GGUPS Khokhsar South, Gida, District Bamer).

2. Mahipal Dhayal S/o Hanuman Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Presently Posted As Teacher Grade III At GSS Sutharo Ki Dhani, Nagana Tala, Meghwalo Ki Basti, Gida, District Barmer.

3. Abhay Singh Solanki S/o Amar Singh Solanki, Aged About 31 Years, Presently Posted As Teacher Grade III At GGUPS, Moole Ka Tala, District Barmer.

4. Rakesh Kumar S/o Jai Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Presently Posted As Teacher Grade III At GUPS Janduon Ki Nadi, Hati Tala, District Barmer.

5. Mukesh Kumar S/o Bajrang Lal, Aged About 36 Years, Presently Posted As Teacher Grade III At GUPS Mobtoni Purohito Ki Dhani, Meghwalo Ki Basti, Gida, District Barmer.

6. Praveen Kumar S/o Dharmpal Singh, Aged About 32 Years, Presently Posted As Teacher Grade III At GUPS Indraniyo Ka Tala, Kanod, Gida, District Barmer.

7. Smt. Rajan Sharma D/o Radheshyam Sharma, Aged About 45 Years, Presently Posted As Teacher Grade III At Gups Panchayat Ghar, Kapuradi, Block Barmer, District Barmer.

8. Surendra Kumar S/o Inderaj Singh, Aged About 46 Years, Presently Posted As Teacher Grade III At GUPS Kerli Nadi,

[2023/RJJD/003998] (3 of 6) [CW-4479/2022]

Gram Panchayat Puniya Ka Tala, Gida, District Barmer.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.

3. The Joint Director (School Education), Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.

4. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Barmer.

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanwar Singh Rathore Mr. A.R. Godara For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Choudhary Mr. K.K. Bissa

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

04/02/2023

1. The petitioners who have jointly filed in these petitions

earlier also approached this Court and by way of separate

adjudication they have been held entitled for notional benefits.

2. Admittedly, those orders have attained finality and the

respondents have complied with the orders and conferred notional

benefits on the post of Teacher Grade-III.

3. When the respondent - State began the exercise of

promotion to the post of Teacher Grade-II, initially provisional

seniority list was published and thereafter final list of the

candidates eligible for the promotion was published, but names of

petitioners were not reflected.

[2023/RJJD/003998] (4 of 6) [CW-4479/2022]

4. Non inclusion of petitioners' names in such lists has given

them a reason to knock at the doors of this Court with a plea that

when they have been conferred seniority (though notionally) from

earlier date, than their respective date of appointment/joining,

why their names have not been included while persons junior to

them have been able to get their names included in the list of

eligible candidates.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that once

adjudication has been made by this Court and it has been given

due effect to by the respondents, they are not justified in dropping

their names from the list of eligible candidates.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that

true it is, that pursuant to the judgment in petitioners' favour,

they have been conferred notional benefit with effect from the

date they have been claiming, but in order to meet the eligibility

criterion, the experience of five years has to be actual working

experience as Teacher Grade-III. He added that the fact that the

notional benefits have been conferred to such petitioners, the

period of the notional seniority cannot be treated as an actual

experience, when they claim promotion to higher post.

7. In support of such contention, learned counsel relied upon

the judgment of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the

case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. M. Bhaskar & Ors. reported in

(1996) 4 SCC 416.

8. Mr. A.R. Godara and Mr. Tanwar Singh, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners on the other hand submitted that in a

recent decision dated 17.11.2022, involving almost identical issue,

a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajneesh Labana

[2023/RJJD/003998] (5 of 6) [CW-4479/2022]

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.12391/2022 has held that notional benefit conferred pursuant

to adjudication made by the High Court is required to be counted

and the same should be reckoned for the purpose of promotion.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. The issue for consideration of this Court is very limited -

"whether the notional seniority conferred upon an employee

pursuant to adjudication made by the High Court and

corresponding benefits accorded by the State Government is to be

treated as experience for the purpose of eligibility for promotion."

11. The answer has to be affirmative, for the reasons set out

hereinfra.

12. An adjudication made by the High Court, which has attained

finality and which has been given effect to has to be brought to

logical end and needs to be given its legitimate effect.

13. If the respondents' stand is accepted, then the judgment

passed by this Court in petitioners' favour would be rendered

otiose and meaningless. No fruitful purpose would be served by

making adjudication or holding that an employee is entitled for

notional benefit.

14. In place of actual pecuniary benefits notional benefits are

often conferred in order to balance equity so that the State is not

unnecessarily burdened with the additional salary and

emoluments. But such balancing act or equatable consideration

cannot entitle the State to take advantage and take a U turn to

contend that the same cannot be equated with actual experience.

15. A reading of the judgment of this Court in Rajneesh Labana's

case (supra) shows that all relevant law including the judgment of

[2023/RJJD/003998] (6 of 6) [CW-4479/2022]

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs.

M. Bhaskar & Ors. have been considered.

16. In view of the aforesaid and following the judgment in the

case of Rajneesh Labana's case (supra) these petitions are

allowed.

17. The respondents are directed to publish fresh seniority

list/list of eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Teacher

Grade-II after reflecting petitioners' name appropriately,

considering their date of appointment to be notional date (as fixed

by the State in furtherance of the orders of the High Court) for the

purpose of reckoning their seniority.

18. Needful be done within a period of four weeks from today.

The respondent shall not undertake exercise of promotion to the

post of Teacher Grade-II unless such revised list of eligible

candidates is published.

19. Stay applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 8 & 9-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)