Anita Kumari vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1375 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1375 Raj
Judgement Date : 4 February, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Anita Kumari vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 4 February, 2023

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2023/RJJD/003960]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19462/2022

1. Anita Kumari D/o Shri Ramdev Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Lamba Gothara, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

2. Vikash S/o Shri Partap Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village And Post Rampura Beri, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.)

3. Mukesh Kumar Harijan S/o Shri Moti Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village And Post Kurada, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur (Raj.)

4. Manoj Kumar Jatav S/o Shri Murari Lal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village And Post Samraya, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

5. Bharat Lal Kumawat S/o Shri Nanuram Kumawat, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Mod Ka Nimbahera, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

6. Mukesh Jakhad S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Jakhad, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village And Post Parana, Tehsil Tonk, District Tonk (Raj.)

7. Ratan Lal Bairwa S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Bairwa, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Taswariya, Post Sanganer, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

8. Om Prakash Saini S/o Shri Mangya Ram Saini, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Naithala, Post Nithari, Tehsil Malakhera, District Alwar (Raj.)

9. Rajendra Prasad S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Ranasar Panwaran, Post Jaitsar, Tehsil Sardarsahar, District Churu (Raj.)

10. Kishan Singh S/o Shri Jamvant Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Nagla Dulheram, Post Chichana, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.)

11. Nand Singh Khatik S/o Shri Ladu Lal Khatik, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Amadla, Tehsil Karera, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

12. Banwari Lal Raigar S/o Shri Gangaram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Raghodas Ka Bass, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur (Raj.)

[2023/RJJD/003960] (2 of 3) [CW-19462/2022]

13. Shivraj Jat S/o Shri Gopal Lal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Bagthla, Post Itdiya, Tehsil Fuliya Kalan, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

14. Meghraj Singh S/o Shri Vijay Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Nagar, Tehsil Nagar, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

15. Pradyuman Kumar Meena S/o Shri Prakash Chand Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Barwa, Tehsil Bassi, District 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 (Ajmer Range), Ajmer, (Rajasthan.)

4. Superintendent Of Police, Bhilwara (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Jhajharia For Respondent(s) :

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

04/02/2023

1. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the

issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by the

judgment in 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 the extent is redressed,

[2023/RJJD/003960] (3 of 3) [CW-19462/2022]

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."

3. In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by

the petitioners is disposed of with similar directions to the

respondents No.3 & 4 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.