Monday, 18, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Indra vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 16305 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 16305 Raj
Judgement Date : 1 December, 2025

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Indra vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 1 December, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:51852]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
            S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23336/2025
1.       Indra W/o Hanumanram Godara, Aged About 31 Years, R/
         o Vishnu Nagar, Janiyon Ki Beri, Koliyana, Barmer,
         Presentaly Working At Govt. Senior Secondary School,
         Dhorimanna, District Barmer.
2.       Sangeeta Sankhala D/o Girdhari Lal Sankhala, Aged
         About 31 Years, R/o Behind Khatikan School, Ward No. 3,
         Sikar, District Sikar, Presentaly Working At Mahatma
         Gandhi Govt. School, Sindhari, District Barmer, Hall
         District Balotra.
3.       Ramswarup Bishnoi S/o Rampal Bishnoi, Aged About 30
         Years, R/o Ward No. 2 Jasrasar, Bikaner. Presently
         Working At Govt. Senior Secondary School, Kumpaliya,
         Barmer. Hall District Balotra.
4.       Ladu Ram S/o Chhoga Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
         Village Sindhawasa Chauhanan, Po- Sindhawas Chauhan,
         Sub District Gudamalani, District Barmer. Presentaly
         Working At Govt. Senior Secondary School, Koja, Block
         Dhorimanna, Barmer.
5.       Vikash Kumar S/o Ganpat Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
         Sewari, District Jalore.
                                                        ----Petitioners
                                 Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
         Department Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur, Raj.
2.       Director,    Department       Of    Secondary      Education,
         Directorate, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Raj.
3.       District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary
         Education, Barmer, District- Barmer, Raj.
4.       District Education Officer, (Headquarter) Secondary
         Education, Balotra, District - Balotra, Raj.
5.       District Education Officer, (Headquarter) Secondary
         Education, Jalore, District - Jalore, Raj.
                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Devendra Singh Pidiyar
For Respondent(s)         :     --


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order 01/12/2025

1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners

submits that the subject matter in the present writ petition is

squarely covered by the order passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of

this Court on 13.11.2019 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. (Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 05:05:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51852] (2 of 3) [CW-23336/2025]

16879/2019 titled as 'Jetha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors.'.

2. The relevant part of the aforesaid order dated 13.11.2019

reads as follows:

"This writ petition has been filed by petitioner seeking relief as indicated in the writ petition.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner 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, and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra) and Krishan Lal (supra).

In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by the petitioner 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 be come 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 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.

(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 05:05:14 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51852] (3 of 3) [CW-23336/2025]

The petitioners approached the respondents byway 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, 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. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in the

same terms as passed in the case of Jetha Ram (supra).

4. All the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 250-BhumikaP/-

(Uploaded on 01/12/2025 at 05:05:14 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter