Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunita Gurjar vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:38949) on 20 September, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:38949]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15472/2024
Sunita Gurjar D/o Shri Bal Krishan Gurjar, W/o Shri Shiv Raj
Gurjar, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Krishna Flour Mills, Kawa
Kheda Chhoraya, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Elementary Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara.
4. The Joint Director, School Education, Ajmer Division,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.
5. District Education Officer, Headquarter (Elementary)
Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
6. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Suwana,
District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Dimple Devra
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
20/09/2024
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset,
submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ petition
stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court, at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in a batch of writ
applications lead case being SBCWP Number 1798/2012: Govind
Das Vaishnav & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.,
decided on 26th may, 2014, relying upon the earlier opinion in the
[2024:RJ-JD:38949] (2 of 3) [CW-15472/2024]
case of Suman Jhanwar & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan &
Ors. alongwith connected six writ applications (SBCWP No.
5405/2012, decided on 12th May, 2014), observing thus:
"After the legal battle, the petitioners were
given appointment as 'Prabodhak' under the
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service
Rules, 2008. Though the petitioners were
originally appointed as Prabodhakvide the
order (Annex.2) dated 29.09.2008 by the
order of the District Education Officer,
however, they were not given joining on the
said post, and after approaching this Court
under the directions of this Court, in case of
the present petitioners who were appointed
vide the order (Annex.4) dated 24.02.2009,
however, were not given the notional benefit of
seniority etc. from the date of original
appointment on 29.09.2008, hence, the
present writ petition was filed. Mr. N.R.
Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that for other similarly situated
persons vide Annex.5 dated 19.10.2011, the
District Education Officer, Bhilwara, had given
appointment to certain persons like Asha Joshi
and Aruna Pareek etc. (16 in number) giving
them the notional benefit of seniority from the
date of 01.10.2008 as Prabodhak even though
they were actually appointed under the order
(Annex.5) dated 19.10.2011 in pursuance of
the directions of this Court. Since the
petitioners have been given different treatment
and no such similar notional benefit with effect
from retrospective date has been given to the
petitioners, hence, the present writ petitions
have been filed by them. The other petitioners
before this Court also claim similar relief/s. The
petitioners have not first brought these facts to
the notice of the respondents before
approaching this Court, therefore, the present
writ petitions filed by the petitioners are
considered as premature. Therefore, the
present writ petitions are disposed of with
liberty and direction to the petitioners to file
appropriate representation with relevant
[2024:RJ-JD:38949] (3 of 3) [CW-15472/2024]
evidence before the appointing authority, who
has issued the orders of appointment to the
petitioners claiming the same relief, as
purportedly given to other similar situated
persons. It is expected of the said
respondentauthority to pass speaking orders
after providing the opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners or their authorized
representative as to why similar benefit cannot
be extended to them though others persons
have been given such benefits. If, however,
any adverse order is passed against the
petitioners, the petitioners will be at liberty to
avail the legal remedy available to them in
accordance with law. The writ petitions are,
accordingly, disposed of. No costs. A copy of
this order be sent to the concerned parties
forthwith."
2. The instant writ petition is allowed in above terms.
3. The parties are supposed to act accordingly as directed in
the judgment referred supra.
4. Stay petition is disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
31-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
