Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:19573) on 23 April, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:19573]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8042/2025
1. Kal Singh S/o Man Singh, Aged About 46 Years, Village
Kheteshwar Nagar, Behind Rajpurohit Hostel, Tehsil
Barmer, District Barmer.
2. Vagtaram S/o Gumanaram Choudhary, Aged About 47
Years, Village Jhadpa, Tehsil Sedva, District Barmer.
3. Mahendra Ram Wegela S/o Langa Ram Wagela, Aged
About 52 Years, Mother Teresa Sr Sec School, Near Ram
Nagar, Tehsil - Barmer, District Barmer.
4. Dala Ram S/o Bhabhuta Ram, Aged About 49 Years,
Village And Post Daruda, Tehsil Barmer, District Barmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of School Education, Government
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Barmer
5. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Chaudhary
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
23/04/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
controversy in question rests covered by the judgment passed by
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.7283/2014: Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors. (decided on 16.07.2014). He submits that
[2025:RJ-JD:19573] (2 of 3) [CW-8042/2025]
the petitioners would be satisfied if the respondents are directed
to decide the representation of the petitioners in light of the
aforesaid judgment.
2. In Manoj Khandelwal's case (supra), it was observed and
held as under:
"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."
3. In view of the submission made, the present writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the competent
authority/respondents to decide the representation(s) of the
petitioners if filed within a period of fifteen days from now. The
representation(s) be decided within a period of six weeks
thereafter in accordance with law and keeping in view the
observations made in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra).
[2025:RJ-JD:19573] (3 of 3) [CW-8042/2025]
4. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the
representation(s) has been issued only with a view to ensure
expeditious redressal of petitioners' grievance.
5. The order has been passed based on the submissions made
in the petition and by learned counsel for the petitioners before
this Court. 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, appropriate
orders would be passed in favour of the petitioners.
6. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
23-Devanshi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
