Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Monika Mathur vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 7 November, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:38308]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17329/2023
1. Monika Mathur D/o Shri Bhawani Lal Mathur, Aged About
47 Years, R/o 188, Radhika Residency, District Sirohi,
Rajasthan.
2. Pinki Mathur D/o Shri Om Prakash Mathur, W/o Shri Vijay
Kumar Mathur, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 2/117, Sunder
Ratan Housing Board, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Education, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. The Joint Director, School Education Pali Division, Pali.
5. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Sirohi.
6. The District Education Officer, Secondary Education,
Sirohi.
7. The District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad,
Sirohi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.R.S. Jodha.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
07/11/2023
1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioners seeking reliefs
as indicated in the writ petition.
2. 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 of
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:43:48 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:38308] (2 of 4) [CW-17329/2023]
Rajasthan & 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).
3. In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by
the petitioners is 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 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,
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:43:48 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:38308] (3 of 4) [CW-17329/2023]
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."
4. 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 them
and lower in merit were given appointment.
5. Upon consideration of the representation so filed, if
respondents find the case of the petitioner to be covered by the
judgment(s) aforesaid, before giving actual benefits, an
undertaking shall be procured from the petitioner to the effect that
his 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, he shall also be liable for restitution of
any benefits/emoluments so received.
6. The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly
7. The order has been passed based on the submissions made
in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:43:48 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:38308] (4 of 4) [CW-17329/2023]
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.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
48-/Jitender//-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
