Rajasthan High Court
Manohar Lal S/O Late Shri Peeru Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:6383) on 7 February, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:6383]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17478/2023
1. Manohar Lal S/o Late Shri Peeru Lal, Aged About 43
Years, R/o Village And Post- Masuda, District- Ajmer.
2. Narendra Singh Rawat S/o Late Shri Mangal Singh, Aged
About 45 Years, R/o Ganahera, Ajmer, Pushkar.
3. Anil Kumar Nama S/o Shri Gulab Chand Nama, Aged
About 43 Years, R/o Village - Nasirada, Tehsil - Deoli,
District - Tonk.
4. Pradhyuman Singh S/o Late Shri Man Singh, Aged About
42 Years, R/o Vpo- Bhawata Via Sardhana, District-
Ajmer.
5. Jayant Madnani S/o Late Shri Heera Madnani, Aged About
42 Years, R/o
6. Hardayal Singh Mojawat S/o Shri Lahar Singh, Aged
About 47 Years, R/o
7. Himmat Singh Chouhan S/o Late Shri Nirbhay Singh
Chouhan, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
8. Sunil Das S/o Late Shri Sudhir Das, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o 287/1, Christian Ganj, Ajmer.
9. Deepak Godha S/o Late Shri Kc Godha, Aged About 42
Years, R/o
10. Radheyshyam Bunkar S/o Shri Gopal Lal, Aged About 43
Years, R/o
11. Deepak Solanki S/o Shri T.c. Solanki, Aged About 45
Years, R/o
12. Sitaram Jat S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Jat, Aged About 45
Years, R/o
13. Birbal Singh Barala S/o Late Shri Choth Mal, Aged About
43 Years, R/o
14. Vikas Kumar S/o Late Shri Ramchandra Sharma, Aged
About 43 Years, R/o
15. Ranjeet Singh Mojawat S/o Late Shri Pratap Singh
Mojawat, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
16. Peush Gupta S/o Late Shri Om Prakash Gupta, Aged
About 43 Years, R/o
17. Mannu Pratap Singh Bhati S/o Late Shri Mohan Singh,
(Downloaded on 23/02/2024 at 10:40:48 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:6383] (2 of 4) [CW-17478/2023]
Aged About 42 Years, R/o
18. Mohan Singh S/o Late Shri Babu Lal Rawat, Aged About
49 Years, R/o
19. Mal Singh S/o Late Jhabbar Singh, R/o
20. Kuldeep Singh Gahlot S/o Late Shri Jethu Singh Gahlot,
R/o
21. Rajendra Singh Gahlot S/o Shri Radheyshyam Singh,
Aged About 39 Years, R/o
22. Babu Lal Bhardwaj S/o Late Shri Pushkar Lal, Aged About
38 Years, R/o
23. Sanjay Kumar S/o Late Shri Gulab, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o
24. Ved Prakash S/o Late Shri Gulab Singh, Aged About 41
Years, R/o
25. Akhilesh Vaishnav S/o Late Shri Jagdessh Pr, Vaishnav,
Aged About 41 Years, R/o
26. Sunil Kumar Verma S/o Late Shri J P Verma, Aged About
37 Years, R/o
27. Ashish S/o Late Shri Harpal Singh, Aged About 38 Years,
R/o
28. Mahipal Singh S/o Late Shri Shyoji Singh, Aged About 37
Years, R/o
29. Prakash Chandra Sharma S/o Late Shri Shankar Lal
Sharma, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Energy, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Through Its Managing
Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Punit Singhvi
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
[2024:RJ-JP:6383] (3 of 4) [CW-17478/2023]
Order
07/02/2024
1. Defect(s) pointed out by the registry is overruled.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Heard and considered.
5. 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).
6. 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
[2024:RJ-JP:6383] (4 of 4) [CW-17478/2023]
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."
7. This Court is bound by the dictum of Co-ordinate Bench.
Since the claim of the petitioners is clearly against the above
quoted portion of the Co-ordinate Bench judgment, this Court
can't interfere and the grievance of the petitioners can only be
raised before the Division Bench.
8. The petitioners are therefore granted liberty to raise their
grievance before the Division Bench, if so advised.
9. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
ANIL SHARMA /409
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
