Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Durga Meghwal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:41104) on 8 October, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:41104]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16421/2024
Durga Meghwal D/o Shri Madan Lal, W/o Shri Tara Chand Pannu,
Aged About 33 Years, R/o Rani Bazaar, Behind Chopra Katla,
Near Ram Mandir, Bikaner, Rajasthan. Presently Serving As
Senior Teacher (Social Science).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Mandal, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
4. Joint Director, (School Education), Jodhpur Mandal,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Dimple Devra
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
08/10/2024
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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. Learned
counsel claims that the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief
as granted in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra) and Krishan
Lal (supra).
[2024:RJ-JD:41104] (2 of 3) [CW-16421/2024]
2. In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by
the petitioner 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
[2024:RJ-JD:41104] (3 of 3) [CW-16421/2024]
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."
3. For the purpose aforesaid, the petitioner 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 petitioner from the date persons similarly situated to her
and lower in merit were given appointment.
4. 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
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.
5. The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
6. 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 petitioner
would be entitled to the relief.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
36-SunilS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
