Begraj vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:19574)
2025 Latest Caselaw 12157 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Begraj vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:19574) on 23 April, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:19574]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8043/2025

Begraj S/o Jai Singh, Aged About 48 Years, Ramsara Teeba,
Ramsara Tal, Churu.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
         Department Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur
2.       The Director, Primary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan
3.       The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan
4.       District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Churu
5.       District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Churu
6.       The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Churu
                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :    Mr. Jaamvant Gujar



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

23/04/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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

the petitioner would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to

decide the representation of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid

judgment.

2. In Manoj Khandelwal's case (supra), it was observed and

held as under:

[2025:RJ-JD:19574] (2 of 3) [CW-8043/2025]

"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 of the

petitioner if filed within a period of fifteen days from now. The

representation 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).

4. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the

representation has been issued only with a view to ensure

expeditious redressal of petitioner's grievance.

5. The order has been passed based on the submissions made

in the petition and by learned counsel for the petitioner before this

[2025:RJ-JD:19574] (3 of 3) [CW-8043/2025]

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 petitioner.

6. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J 24-Devanshi/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)