Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pankaj Kumar Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 January, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19614/2022
Pankaj Kumar Sharma S/o Ram Prasad Sharma, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Behind Devendra Talkies, Ward No. 21 Chhoti Sadri,
Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Department
Education (Elementary) Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Department Of
Panchayati Raj Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Directorate Bikaner
(Raj.).
4. District Education Officer (Elementary), Pratapgarh,
Rajasthan.
5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pratapgarh,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. VLS Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : -
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
02/01/2023
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue
raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by order in
Reena Kunwar Chundawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.:
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10893/2022) and other
connected matters decided on 13.10.2022, wherein, similarly
placed candidate has been granted relief as prayed for in the
present writ petition.
(2 of 3) [CW-19614/2022]
2. In the case of Reena Kunwar Chundawat (supra), the Court,
inter-alia, came to the following conclusion and directed as
under:-
"I have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the material available on record.
It is not in dispute that the petitioners had
applied pursuant to the advertisement dated
12.4.2018 and on account of the circumstances,
wherein on account of the area, wherein the
petitioners were residents came into TSP
area/they were denied benefit of application
despite being residents after marriage within the
TSP area, they approached this Court by filing
writ petitions led by Manish Kumar Nagda (supra)
and Smt. Twarita Gehlot (supra), which came to
be accepted by this Court, wherein the petitioners
were permitted to seek appointment in TSP area.
Once the grievance/plea raised by the
petitioners was accepted by this Court and they
were permitted to seek appointment pursuant to
the advertisement dated 12.4.2018 as per their
merit, the denial of the notional benefits to the
petitioners in relation to candidates, who were
lower in merit to the petitioners only on account
of the fact that they were accorded appointment
pursuant to the directions issued by this Court,
cannot be countenanced.
Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the
petitioners are allowed.
The respondents are directed to accord
notional benefits to the petitioners pursuant to
their appointment in relation to the advertisement
dated 12.4.2018 on the post of Teacher Grade III
Level I from the date persons lower in merit to
the petitioners were accorded appointment.
Needful may be done by the respondents
within a period of eight weeks."
3. In view of the submissions made, the petition filed by the
petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to
address a representation before the competent authority of the
respondents along with webcopy of the judgment rendered in the
(3 of 3) [CW-19614/2022]
case of Reena Kunwar Chundawat (supra) and the certified copy of
the order instant within a period of four weeks.
4. In case, the representation is so addressed, the competent
authority shall consider the same in accordance with law including
the judgment rendered in the case of Reena Kunwar Chundawat
(supra), as early as possible, preferably within a period of three
months from the receipt thereof.
5. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the
representation has been issued only with a view to ensure
expeditious redressal of petitioner's grievance. The same may not
be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a
particular manner.
6. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
171-Inder/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
