Anil Kumar Meghwanshi vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3867 Raj

[2023/RJJD/013082] (1 of 3) [CW-5347/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5347/2023

1. Anil Kumar Meghwanshi S/o Shri Hira Lal Meghwanshi, Aged About 32 Years, R/i Village And Post Gadoli, Tehsil Jahazpur Distt. Bhilwara (Raj.0.

2. Rakesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ramniwas Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Nawalpura Thana Manoharpur Post Manoharpur, Tehsil Shahapura, District Jaipur (Raj.).

3. Ghanshyam Saini S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Saini, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward No. 39 Sawariya Marriage Garden Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj.).

4. Jhabar Mal Sharma S/o Shri Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Bharupura Post Cheeplata, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.).

5. Nitesh Yadav S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad Yadav, Aged About 27 Years, R/o New Yadav Colony Barsinghpura Road Khandela, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar (Raj.).

6. Hanuman Sahai Choudhary S/o Shri Gopal Lal Choudhary, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Chauru, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur (Raj.).

7. Ravindra Kumar S/o Shri Data Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Kharawa, Post Gyanapura, Tehsil Narayanpur District Alwar (Raj.).

8. Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Puran Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Nagla Moti, Post Sihi, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

9. Sanwariya S/o Shri Gopal Lal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Chhan Bas Surya, Thana Todaraisingh Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk (Raj.).

10. Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Ramdeva Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Karanpura, Post Khoor, Tehsil Dantaramgarh District Sikar (Raj.).

11. Ram Raj Choudhary S/o Shri Kaluram Choudhary, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village And Post Parwan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur (Raj.).

12. Ramavatar Saini S/o Shri Shyoji Ram Mali, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Aamli Sonk Post Kadila, Thana Diggi Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.).

13. Bhagat Singh S/o Shri Gordhan Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Nagla Khuntela, Post Bahaj, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

14. Rameshwar Singh S/o Shri Moti Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village And Post Sinsini, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

15. Bharat Singh S/o Shri Magan Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village And Post Jagdishpura, Tehsil Todabhim District

[2023/RJJD/013082] (2 of 3) [CW-5347/2023]

Karauli (Raj.).

16. Suresh Choudhary S/o Shri Bholu Ram Choudhary, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Shyorano Ka Bass Moondwara Post Sinodiya Tehsil Phulera District Jaipur (Raj.).

17. Raghuvir Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Harji Ram Gurjar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village And Post Goverdhan Pura Tehsil Rajgarh Distt. Alwar (Raj.).

18. Vinod Kumar Jangid S/o Shri Lallu Prasad Jangid, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Plot No. B-94 Shivpuri Colony Buddhsinghpura Airport Road Sanganer, Jaipur, 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, (Kota Range), Kota, (Rajasthan).

4. Superintendent Of Police, Kota City (Raj.).

5. Superintendent Of Police, Jhalawar (Raj.).

                                                                  ----Respondents


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

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order

02/05/2023

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, but appointment should have been made effective from the date candidates lesser in merit were given appointment with notional benefits.

[2023/RJJD/013082] (3 of 3) [CW-5347/2023]

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 & 5 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.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 106-AnilSingh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)