Ravindra Regar (Belt No. 1137) vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1076 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1076 Raj
Judgement Date : 27 January, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ravindra Regar (Belt No. 1137) vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 27 January, 2023

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2023/RJJD/002657]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1690/2023

1. Ravindra Regar (Belt No. 1137) S/o Shri Gopi Lal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Regar Mohalla, Village Sardargarh, Tehsil Amet, District Rajsamand (Raj.)

2. Vishvendra Singh Jatav (Belt No.1149) S/o Shri Uday Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Saad Mohalla, Loha Mandi, Deeg, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

3. Jai Narayan Gurjar (Belt No.1094) S/o Shri Banna Ram Gurjar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Surri, Post Sali, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur Rural (Raj.)

4. Sunil Kumar (Belt No.1101) S/o Shri Bhanwr Lal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village 31Rb 1St, Post Fakirwali, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

5. Shrawan Kumar (Belt No.1112) S/o Shri Bhattaram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Nayagaon, Post Cotsolkiyan, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali (Raj.)

6. Bheru Lal Chandel (Belt No.1122) S/o Shri Nena Lal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Cheta Aasan, Tehsil Deogarh, District Rajsamand (Raj.)

7. Parwati Meena (Belt No.1152) D/o Shri Roormal Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Nyorana, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.)

8. Ripu Kumari (Belt No.1155) D/o Shri Satyanand Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ganesh Nagar, Dhoinda, Kankroli, Tehsil And District Rajsamand (Raj.)

9. Sumit Kumar (Belt No.1080) S/o Shri Mahavir Prasad, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 2/3 Rjm Rojari, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

10. Bharat Kumar Jatiya (Belt No.1120) S/o Shri Gotu Lalji Jatiya, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Choupati Bazsar Molela, Village And Post Molela, Tehsil Khamnour, District Rajsamand (Raj.)

11. Ramesh Chandra Regar (Belt No.1142) S/o Shri Leharulal Regar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village And Post Gilund, Tehsil Relmagra, District Rajsamand (Raj.)

12. Lokesh Kumar Meena (Belt No.1081) S/o Shri Suji Ram Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Toda Bhata, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur City (Raj.)

[2023/RJJD/002657] (2 of 3) [CW-1690/2023]

13. Lalit Kumar Jatiya (Belt No.1125) S/o Shri Narayan Lal Jatiya, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Choupati Bazar Molela, Village And Post Molela, Tehsil Khamnour, District Rajsamand (Raj.)

14. Gautam Kumar Pahariya (Belt No.1110) S/o Shri Shanker Lal Pahariya, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Negdiya Road, Ward No.8, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

15. Dinesh Kumar Bishnoi (Belt No.417) S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Bishnoi, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Kakra, Post Himmatsar, Police Station Jasraasar, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (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 (Udaipur Range), Udaipur (Rajasthan.)

4. Superintendent Of Police, Rajsamand (Raj.)

----Respondents

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

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

27/01/2023

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:

[2023/RJJD/002657] (3 of 3) [CW-1690/2023]

"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that realizing the mistake, appointment has been given, thus, grievance of petitioner to the 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."

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.