Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Priyanka Parsoya vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:33900) on 1 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:33900]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14336/2025
Priyanka Parsoya D/o Shri Chhagan Lal Parsoya, Aged About 41
Years, R/o 2-F-261 Jay Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
Presently Posted As School Lecture Geography.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.L. Deora
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
01/08/2025
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, 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
[2025:RJ-JD:33900] (2 of 2) [CW-14336/2025]
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 the
representation 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.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
8-AbhishekK/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
