Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manju Kumawat vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:20468) on 28 April, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:20468]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8378/2025
1. Manju Kumawat W/o Shri Rakesh Kumawat, Aged About
37 Years, R/o Opposite Rseb Office, Chhoti Sadri, Tehsil
Chhoti Sadri, District- Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
2. Radha Kumari Patidar D/o Shri Rameshwar Lal Patidar,
Aged About 31 Years, R/o Karunda, Tehsil Chhoti Sadri,
District- Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
3. Praveen Kumar Menariya S/o Shri Vimal Kumar Menariya,
Aged About 33 Years, R/o Brahman Mohalla, Village
Barekhan, Post Gagarol, Tehsil Chhoti Sadri, District-
Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
4. Prakash Chand Meena S/o Shri Dal Chand Meena, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o Roopapura, Jaloda Jageer, Tehsil
Chhoti Sadri, District- Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
5. Sumitra Sharma D/o Shri Parasmal Sharma, Aged About
31 Years, R/o Village Khemaliya District- Pratapgarh,
Rajasthan.
6. Laxmi Kumari Sharma D/o Shri Hari Shankar Sharma,
Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Khemaliya District-
Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
7. Chandresh Kumawat S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o 63, Gagrol, Bhat Kheda Post-
Kesunda, Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Department Of
Education (Elementary) Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Panchayat Raj Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Directorate Bikaner
(Raj.).
4. Chief District Education Officer, (Elementary), Pratapgarh,
District Pratapgarh.
5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pratapgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. VLS Rajpurohit.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Soni for
Mr. B.L.Bhati, AAG.
(Downloaded on 28/04/2025 at 10:05:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20468] (2 of 3) [CW-8378/2025]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
28/04/2025
Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a
judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this court in a batch
of writ petitions led by S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10893/2022
(Reena Kunwar Chundawat V/s State of Raj. & Ors.) decided
on 13.10.2022 in the following terms:-
"I have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
material available on record. It is not in dispute that the
petitioners had applied pursuant to the advertisement
dated 12.4.2018 and on account of the circumstances,
wherein on account of the area, wherein the petitioners
were residents came into TSP area/they were denied
benefit of application despite being residents after
marriage within the TSP area, they approached this
Court by filing writ petitions led by Manish Kumar Nagda
(supra) and Smt. Twarita Gehlot (supra), which came to
be accepted by this Court, wherein the petitioners were
permitted to seek appointment in TSP area.
Once the grievance/plea raised by the petitioners
was accepted by this Court and they were permitted to
seek appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated
12.4.2018 as per their merit, the denial of the notional
benefits to the petitioners in relation to candidates, who
were lower in merit to the petitioners only on account of
the fact that they were accorded appointment pursuant
to the directions issued by this Court, cannot be
countenanced.
Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the
petitioners are allowed.
The respondents are directed to accord notional
benefits to the petitioners pursuant to their appointment
in relation to the advertisement dated 12.4.2018 on the
post of Teacher Grade III Level I from the date persons
lower in merit to the petitioners were accorded
appointment.
Needful may be done by the respondents within a
period of eight weeks".
[2025:RJ-JD:20468] (3 of 3) [CW-8378/2025]
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be
permitted to file a representation in the light of judgment
rendered in the case of Reena Kunwar Chundawat (supra) and
the respondents may be directed to decide the same
expeditiously.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in case,
such representation is filed, the same shall be considered and
decided expeditiously in the light of law lay down in the case of
Reena Kunwar Chundawat (supra).
In view of the submissions made before this court, the
present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to
file a representation in the light of judgment passed by a
coordinate bench of this court in the case of Reena Kunwar
Chundawat (supra) and the respondents are directed to decide the
same expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of such representation, strictly in accordance
with law.
It is made clear that the present writ petition has been
disposed of in view of the submissions made by the counsel for
the petitioners and no order on merit has been passed, therefore,
the respondents shall examine the case of the petitioners on merit
keeping in mind the law laid down in the case of Reena Kunwar
Chundawat (supra). If the case of the petitioner is not covered by
the judgment rendered in the case of Reena Kunwar Chundawat
(supra), they shall pass a speaking order.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
21-AnilSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
