Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surendra Singh Shekhawat vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 8 August, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:35313]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15015/2025
1. Surendra Singh Shekhawat S/o Rajendra Singh
Shekhawat, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village
Barsinghpura, Post Palsana, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District
Sikar.
2. Hansraj Meena S/o Ramratan Meena, Aged About 46
Years, R/o Village And Post Jetpur, Tehsil Nainwa, District
Bundi.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary Cum
Commissioner, Department Of Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bundi.
4. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Bundi.
5. Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Hindoli District
Bundi.
6. Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bundi District
Bundi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Saini
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
08/08/2025
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
[2025:RJ-JD:35313] (2 of 3) [CW-15015/2025]
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 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
[2025:RJ-JD:35313] (3 of 3) [CW-15015/2025]
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/42-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
