Mahesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4073 Raj

[2023/RJJD/013517]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9254/2022

Mahesh Kumar S/o Kishna Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Railway Station Ke Pass, Baytoo Bhopji, Barmer, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Secondary Education Directorate, Bikaner.

3. Chief District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Barmer.

4. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner, Ajmer.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9223/2022 Prabhu Ram S/o Nand Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 112, Tajoni Beniwal, Beniwalon Ki Dhani, Nagoniyon Dhatarwalon Ki Dhani, Barmer, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Secondary Education Directorate, Bikaner.

3. Chief District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Barmer.

4. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner, Ajmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. VLS Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Choudhary, GC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

04/05/2023

[2023/RJJD/013517] (2 of 4) [CW-9254/2022]

This writ petitions have been filed by petitioners seeking

reliefs as indicated in the writ petition.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the

issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by

judgment of this Court in Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. v. State

ofRajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 7283/2014, decided on

16.07.2014 at Jaipur Bench and the said judgment has been

followed in Krishan Lal & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

:S.B.C.W.P. No. 19179/2017, decided on 30.10.2017 at Jaipur

Bench, and therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to the same

relief as granted in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra) and

Krishan Lal (supra).

In view of the submissions made, the writ petitions filed by

the petitioners are disposed of with the similar directions as given

in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra), which read as under:-

"This Court in Suman Bai and Another Vs. State and Others - 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381, held that candidates in lower order of merit cannot become entitled merely because they had approached court earlier. Petitioners had a fresh cause of action for approaching in such situation and their writ petition not barred either as res judicata or as being him in properly constituted. This directed the respondents to treat petitioners senior to respondents, who were in lower order of merit. It is further contended in the writ petition that in the matter of School Lecturers (English) in the same Department, where appointments were delayed because of the fault of the State authorities, the candidates were accorded appointment from the date the candidates stood lower in merit were appointed and they have been granted all consequential benefits of services.

The petitioners approached the respondents by way of representations for extending them same benefits of service which have been granted to the candidates who stood lower in merit than the petitioners, but till date nothing has been done. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for a direction to the respondents to treat their appointment from the date the candidates lower in merit, were given, with all

[2023/RJJD/013517] (3 of 4) [CW-9254/2022]

consequential benefits of service, such as seniority, continuity of service, pay fixation, grant of annual grade increments.

Having regard to the facts of the case, writ petition is disposed of requiring the petitioners to make a representation to respondent no.2 - Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, alongwith a copy of this order, who shall, after verifying the facts stated above, consider and decide the same by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of its making, addressing the grievance of the petitioners for extending them the relief as prayed for, as the candidates, who stood lower in merit, are getting benefit of higher pay, seniority, annual grade increments and other service benefits including the selection scales. If the respondent no.2 decides to place the petitioners above in seniority than the candidates who stood lower in merit, then the petitioners would be entitled to all benefits of seniority but they would be entitled only to notional benefits."

For the purpose aforesaid, the petitioners shall file

representation before the competent authority giving out the

requisite details along with certified copy of the order instant

within a period of four weeks from today. On receipt of the

representation, the concerned respondent shall decide the same,

in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the

date of receipt of the representation and accord notional benefits

to the petitioners from the date persons similarly situated to her

and lower in merit were given appointment.

Upon consideration of the representation so filed, if

respondents find the case of the petitioners to be covered by the

judgment(s) aforesaid, before giving actual benefits, an

undertaking shall be procured from the petitioners to the effect

that her rights/entitlements shall be subservient to the fate of the

judgment(s) aforesaid and in case the same is reversed or

modified in any manner, she shall also be liable for restitution of

any benefits/emoluments so received.

[2023/RJJD/013517] (4 of 4) [CW-9254/2022]

The stay petitions also stand disposed of accordingly.

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 161-162-SanjayS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)