Mahendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 939 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 939 Raj
Judgement Date : 24 January, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mahendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 24 January, 2023

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2023/RJJD/002209]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1347/2023

1. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Ranjit Singh Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Akheramji Ka Khera, Police Station Shakkargarh Tehsil Jhajhpur District Bhilwara (Raj.)

2. Surya Prakash Acharya S/o Shri Ramchandra Acharya, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Bandar Sindri, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer(Raj.)

3. Sachin Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ramfal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Bhimsinghpura, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar (Raj.)

4. Rakesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Parti Ram Meena, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village And Post Banawar, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa (Raj.)

5. Rajaram Meena S/o Shri Chunnilal Meena, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Khodi, Post Sanwatgarh, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.)

6. Mahesh Kumar Bairwa S/o Shri Mohan Lal Bairwa, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Niloj, Tehsil Baswa District Dausa (Raj.)

7. Rajaram Dhaker S/o Shri Ladu Lal Dhaker, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Narana, Post Bavdi, Tehsil Jahazpur, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

8. Deepak Bairwa S/o Shri Chottu Lal Bairwa, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village And Post Shahpura, Tehsil And District Bhilwara (Raj.)

9. Karamveer Singh S/o Shri Kishan Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Hamjapur, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)

10. Meghsingh Jatav S/o Shri Chooraman Jatav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Ballabhgarh, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

11. Vishan Singh S/o Shri Ram Bharosi, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village And Post Gamari, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj)

12. Shambhu Jeengar S/o Shri Bhagchand Jeengar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o U.i.t. Quarter C 30/31 Bhawani Nagar, Thana Bhimganj, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

13. Amarpal Meena S/o Shri Kalyan Sahai Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Surajpura, Tehsil And District Dausa (Raj.)

14. Rajendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ramswaroop Meena, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Kuchalwara Khurd, Post Tikar, Tehsil Jahazpur District Bhilwara (Raj.)

15. Akash Gurjar S/o Shri Ramfool Gurjar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Shita Watika Colony Kankali Mata Road Tonk District Tonk (Raj.)

[2023/RJJD/002209] (2 of 3) [CW-1347/2023]

16. Hukamsingh Meena S/o Shri Pooransingh Meena, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Buchaka Post Semla Kalan Tehsil Nagar Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.)

17. Gajveer Payal S/o Shri Moolchand Payal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village And Post Birmi Tehsil Malsisar Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

18. Rajesh Meena S/o Shri Prabhu Ram Meena, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village And Post Santha Tehsil Mahwa Distt. Dausa (Raj.)

19. Mahendra Sheshma S/o Shri Bena Ram Sheshma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Devli Kalan Post Marath Tehsil Nawa District Nagour (Raj.)

20. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Laxminarayan, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Birod Post Palawa Tehsil Mundawar 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 (Ajmer Range), Ajmer, (Rajasthan.)

4. Superintendent Of Police, Bhilwara (Raj.)

----Respondents

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

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

24/01/2023

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:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that realizing the mistake, appointment has been given,

[2023/RJJD/002209] (3 of 3) [CW-1347/2023]

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

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.