Rajasthan High Court
Amit Kumar Bhukal S/O Shri Bhana Ram ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:5990) on 5 February, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:5990]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19406/2023
1. Amit Kumar Bhukal S/o Shri Bhana Ram Bhukal, Aged
About 40 Years, R/o Village Post- Miran, Via- Patoda, Dist-
Sikar
2. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Gumana Ram, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Vill-Post- Ghatwa, Tel- Kuchaman City, Dist-
Nagour
3. Kasam Ali Bagri S/o Shri Islamuddin, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Ward No. 21, Sub Jail Ke Piche Chawni
Neemkathana District, Sikar.
4. Sunil Sharma S/o Shri Kailash Sharma, Aged About 38
Years, Ward No. 55, Birdichand Ka Kua Mandralla Road
Jhunjhunu
5. Deendyal Sharma S/o Shri Radeshyam Sharma, Aged
About 44 Years, C/o Radeshyam Sharma, 268 Banera
Road, Shri Devdashan Mandir Ke Pas Ganesh Nagar 4,
Harmada Distt.- Jaipur
6. Ranjeet Singh Moond S/o Shri Pema Ram, Aged About 47
Years, Milo Ki Dhani, Miran, Dist- Sikar.
7. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 40
Years, Vill-Bhairupura, Dist- Sikar.
8. Tara Chand S/o Shri Jeevan Ram, Aged About 44 Years,
Vill-Post- Sola, Tech- Laxmangarh, Dist- Sikar
9. Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Mohan, Aged About 45 Years, Vill-
Post Kheri Raran, Tech Laxmangarh, Dist- Sikar.
10. Pyare Lal Khayalia S/o Shri Dana Ram, Aged About 40
Years, Vill- Narodara, Tech-Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar.
11. Sharwan Kumar Bhaskar S/o Shri Chetan Ram Bhaskar,
Aged About 43 Years, Vill-Post- Ghasu Ka Bas, Tech-
Laxmangarh, Distt.- Sikar
12. Pramod Kumar Varma S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged
About 40 Years, Vill- Post- Ojtoo, Tech- Chirawa, Dist-
Jhunjhunu
13. Sardar Mal Rolaniya S/o Shri Surendra Singh, Aged About
43 Years, Dhani Ram Sagar, Vill And Post- Kanchanpur,
Tech- Srimadhopur, Dist-Sikar
14. Vikram Singh S/o Shri Udami Ram, Aged About 39 Years,
(Downloaded on 12/02/2024 at 08:54:31 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:5990] (2 of 4) [CW-19406/2023]
Vill- Ashok Nagar, Post-Sonasar, Dist- Jhunjhunu
15. Manohar Lal Kalal S/o Shri Mool Chand Kalal, Aged About
44 Years, Vill- Post-Pprda, Tahchil- Rajsamd, Dist-
Rajsmand
16. Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Phool Chand, Aged About 48
Years, Vill- Dada Fatehpura, Distt.- Jhunjhunu
17. Jitendra Singh Tanwar S/o Shri Sumer Singh, Aged About
44 Years, Plot No. 6, R.k. Purama, Titardi, Udaipur
18. Shobha Kathat S/o Shri Pukhraj, Aged About 40 Years,
Vill- Maida Ka Badia, Post- Shivpura Ghata, Dist- Ajmer.
19. Bharat Singh S/o Shri Vijay Singh, Aged About 41 Years,
Plot No. Q 3 Vikasj Colony, Distt.- Sikar
20. Beeram Ram S/o Shri Pooran Mal, Aged About 39 Years,
Indira Colony, Vill-Post Beem, Via- Shreenagar, Dist.-
Ajmer.
21. Shirish Kumawat S/o Shri Chanda Lal, Aged About 41
Years, New Colony Sarla Birla Kalyan Mandeep De Pas,
Vishavkrama Marg. Kuchawam City Distt. Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Energy, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Its Managing
Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Punit Singhvi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
05/02/2024
1. By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking
appointment on the post of LDC from the initial date of
appointment with all consequential benefits.
[2024:RJ-JP:5990] (3 of 4) [CW-19406/2023]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the relief as
claimed for in the present writ petition has already been awarded
to similarly situated persons vide order dated 26.04.2023 in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 4176/1998 titled as Ashish Arora vs.
Rajasthan State Electricity Board, wherein the impugned order
dated 17.10.1996, which discriminated amongst candidates based
on gender, was set aside. Therefore on the strength of the said
judgment the petitioners are praying for similar relief as was
granted to the petitioners in Ashish Arora (supra). It is
submitted that as per settled position of law, when an order is
quashed as being unconstitutional, it would be akin to the said
being void ab initio.
3. Heard and considered.
4. At the outset, it is required to be noted the petitioners have
filed the present writ petition after a delay of about 28 years, only
on the strength of the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Ashish Arora (supra).
5. However, the Co-ordinate Bench had clearly cautioned that
the setting aside of impugned order dated 17.10.1996 would not
give rise to cause of action to any candidates in future and the
benefit was only limited to those cases which were pending before
the Court on the date of judgment. The relevant portion of Ashish
Arora (supra) is reproduced as under:
"20. Before parting with this judgment, it is directed
that on account of quashing of the impugned order
dated 17.10.1996, it would not provide a cause of
action to any candidate in future and would apply to the
cases which are pending before this court on the date of
this judgment only."
[2024:RJ-JP:5990] (4 of 4) [CW-19406/2023]
6. This Court in bound by the dictum of Co-ordinate Bench.
Since the claim of the petitioner is clearly against the above
quoted portion of the Co-ordinate Bench judgment, this Court
can't interfere and the grievance of the petitioner can only be
raised before the Division Bench.
7. The petitioners are therefore granted liberty to raise their
grievance before the Division Bench, if so advised.
8. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Pooja /23
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
