Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Vinay Singh Meena vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:20401) on 28 April, 2025

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:20401]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8303/2025

1.       Vinay Singh Meena S/o Shri Champa Ram Meena, Aged
         About 45 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Katkar,
         Tehsil Hindauncity, District Karauli (Raj.).
2.       Dharu Singh Meena S/o Shri Tataiya Ram Meena, Aged
         About 55 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Todupura,
         Tehsil Hindauncity, District Karauli (Raj.).
3.       Harsahay Meena S/o Shri Gangadhar Meena, Aged About
         59 Years, Resident Of Village Ramdhankapura, Post
         Talchida, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli (Raj.).
4.       Chetram Meena S/o Shri Batti Lal Meena, Aged About 51
         Years, Resident Of Village Ward Nayabas, Post Ramsana,
         Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli (Raj.).
5.       Dropti Bai Meena D/o Shri Ratiram Meena, Aged About 45
         Years, Resident Of Ved Colony, Gangapurcity, District
         Sawa Madhopur (Raj.).
6.       Meetha Lal Meena S/o Shri Nandkorya Meena, Aged About
         53 Years, Resident Of Village Langdapur, Post Kashipura,
         Tehsil And District Karauli (Raj.).
7.       Raju Lal Meena S/o Shri Gordhan Meena, Aged About 47
         Years, Resident Of Village Dhoreri, Post Semarda, Tehsil
         And District Karauli (Raj.).
8.       Murari Lal Meena S/o Shri Ramjilal Meena, Aged About 56
         Years, Resident Of Village And Post Katkar, Tehsil
         Hindauncity, District Karauli (Raj.).
9.       Gajji Lal Meena S/o Shri Jinsiram Meena, Aged About 50
         Years, Resident Of Village And Post Rosi Ka Bada Pura,
         Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli (Raj.).
10.      Govind Ram Meena S/o Shri Dev Chand Meena, Aged
         About 59 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Shekhpura,
         Tehsil Todabhim, District Karauli (Raj.).
11.      Ramhari Bai Meena D/o Shri Shiv Narayan Meena, Aged
         About 45 Years, Resident Of Mahu Khurd, Tajpur Road,
         Gangapurcity, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.).
12.      Ramsahai Meena S/o Shri Mangal Ram Meena, Aged
         About 59 Years, Resident Of Village Vargama, Post
         Loharra (Kailadevi), Tehsil And District Karauli, (Raj.).
                                                                 ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Rural
         Development And Panchayatiraj Department, Govt.
         Secretariat, Jaipur, (Raj.).
2.       The Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Secretariat,
         Jaipur (Raj.).
3.       Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.).
4.       Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.).

                     (Downloaded on 29/04/2025 at 09:43:12 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:20401]                    (2 of 4)                        [CW-8303/2025]


5.       District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Karauli,
         District Karauli (Raj.).
6.       District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Karauli,
         District Karauli (Raj.).
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Ms. Khusboo Palasiya
                                 Mr. Parvesh Poswal
For Respondent(s)          :     --



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

28/04/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners are also

entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Manoj

Khandelwal (supra) and Krishan Lal (supra).

2. In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by

the petitioners 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

[2025:RJ-JD:20401] (3 of 4) [CW-8303/2025]

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 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 petitioners shall file

representation before the competent authority giving out the

[2025:RJ-JD:20401] (4 of 4) [CW-8303/2025]

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 petitioners from the date persons similarly situated to them

and lower in merit were given appointment.

4. Upon consideration of the representation so filed, if

respondents find the cases of the petitioners to be covered by the