Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:38438) on 28 August, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:38438]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13751/2025
Rajesh Kumar S/o Ram Chandra, Aged About 50 Years, 25, Near
Pachlawa Kua, Rabadka Alwar, District Alwar, Rajasthan. Presently
Serving As Senior Teacher (Grade-Ii) English
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Education, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. ML Deora
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
28/08/2025
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:
"..... 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, along with 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
[2025:RJ-JD:38438] (2 of 2) [CW-13751/2025]
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. The order has been passed based on the submissions made in the
petition and by learned counsel for the petitioner 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
petitioner.
5. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide there
presentation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious
redressal of petitioner's grievance. The same may not be construed to
be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner.
6. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
surabhii/17-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
