Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Maina Choudhary vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 February, 2024
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2024:RJ-JD:8296]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2238/2024
1. Maina Choudhary D/o Shri Ramjas Beniwal, Aged About
35 Years, R/o Village Chenpura, Post Mandrapura, Tehsil
Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
2. Shakuntla D/o Shri Krishan Kumar Khati, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Parlika, Gogomeri, Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
3. Suman Kumari D/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Neharu Nagar, Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
4. Sharda Devi D/o Shri Ram Pratap, Aged About 42 Years,
R/o Sector 6, Hanumangarh Junction, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Education
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary
For Respondent(s) :
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
16/02/2024
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue
raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment
of this Court in Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. v. State of 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. The petitioners are also entitled to
(Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:04:48 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:8296] (2 of 3) [CW-2238/2024]
the same relief as granted in the case of Manoj Khandelwal
(supra) and Krishan Lal (supra) claims learned counsel.
2. 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,
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."
(Downloaded on 16/02/2024 at 10:04:48 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:8296] (3 of 3) [CW-2238/2024]
3. 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.
4. Upon consideration of the representation so filed, if
respondents find the case(s) of the petitioner (s) to be covered by
the judgment(s) aforesaid, before giving actual benefits, an
undertaking shall be procured from the concerned petitioner(s) to
the effect that their 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/she shall also be liable for
restitution of any benefits/emoluments so received.
5. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA), J.
C No.18 (57)-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
