Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Devi Singh Chauhan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:38001) on 26 August, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:38001]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 828/2024
Devi Singh Chauhan S/o Shri Ray Singh Chauhan, Aged About
33 Years, Resident Of 94, Mankhand, Post Sanwar, Tehsil Mawli,
District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Administrative Reforms
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
5. The Joint Secretary, Revenue (Group-I) Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
6. The Registrar, Board Of Revenue, Ajmer.
7. The District Collector, Udaipur
8. Hamid Noor, Working As A Senior Assistant At The Office
Of Revenue Board, Ajmer
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pramendra Bohra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
26/08/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed by petitioner claiming
following relief(s):-
"(I) The impugned Order dated 06.12.2023
(Annex.20) passed by the respondent department may
kindly be quashed and set aside and it is further
prayed that the respondents may kindly be directed to
give all service benefits to the petitioner at par with
[2025:RJ-JD:38001] (2 of 3) [CW-828/2024]
the persons who were appointed prior to the petitioner
in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 17.05.2011
as amended vide Corrigendum dated 14.09.2011
(Annex.02), with all consequential benefits.
(II) It is further prayed that the respondent may
kindly be directed to grant all service benefits to the
petitioner actually or notionally."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide
impugned order dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure-20) the petitioner
has been denied benefits of seniority and promotions and instead
of the year 2013, benefits have been given to the petitioner w.e.f.
05.04.2017 i.e. the date of joining of the petitioner. He further
submits that a similar controversy (SBCWP No.16922/2019 :
Mukesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.)
has been laid to rest by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at
Jaipur Bench, Jaipur vide Judgment dated 06.05.2022. Relevant
portion of the said judgment reads as infra:-
"xxxx
12. In view of the discussion made here-in-above,
this writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be
allowed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioners were
given appointment in compliance of the judgment
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the
matter of Saurabh Kumar Kothari (supra) in which
liberty was granted to the respondents to terminate
services of ineligible persons, which although has not
been done by the respondents and such persons are
still working in the Department, that too over & above
to the petitioners who are higher in the merit;
secondly, in view of Rule 37 of the Rules of 1999
interse seniority shall follow the order in the list
prepared under Rule 28 & 29 of the Rules, 1999
respectively and admittedly, the respondents have
prepared the fresh select list of the selected candidates
in compliance of the judgment passed by the Division
Bench of this court in the matter of Saurabh Kumar
Kothari (supra); thirdly the judgment in the matter
of Saurabh Kumar Kothari (supra) was passed by
the Division Bench of this Court on 03.02.2016 and it
is not the case of the respondents that the said
judgment ever became subject matter of challenge
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, meaning thereby
the said judgment has already attained finality, then
respondents were duty bound to obey and comply the
[2025:RJ-JD:38001] (3 of 3) [CW-828/2024]
directions contained in the judgment passed in the
matter of Saurabh Kumar Kothari (supra) in letter and
spirit but on the contrary the respondents kept the
matter pending for grant of seniority & notional
benefits as per Rules for more than five years with
them and; lastly, the petitioners have participated in
the same selection process and their appointment got
delayed due to negligence of the respondents,
therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the benefits
of notional fixation i.e. seniority, promotion & pay scale
etc. from the date when persons were appointed in the
same selection process.
13. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is
allowed. The respondents are directed to give notional
benefits like seniority and promotion to the petitioners
from the date when the less meritorious persons were
given appointment by the respondents in pursuance to
the advertisement dated 17.05.2011. All the pending
applications stand disposed of."
3. Learned counsel representing the respondent-State is not in
a position to refute that the controversy is identical to the case of
Mukesh Kumar Sharma (supra) and therefore, the matter may be
allowed in same terms.
4. Thus, in view of the above facts and circumstances and
taking into consideration the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is allowed in the
same terms as in the case of Mukesh Kumar Sharma (supra) while
also quashing the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure-
20) with the direction to the respondents to give notional benefits
like seniority and promotion to the petitioner from the date when
the less meritorious persons were given appointment by the
respondents pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.05.2011
(Annexure-2).
5. Stay application as well as all pending application(s), if any,
stand disposed of accordingly.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
190-/Devesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
