[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jai Chaudhary vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 6 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:53002]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22812/2025
1. Jai Chaudhary S/o Bhagchand, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Office Of Chief Block Education Officer, Block Sarada,
District Udaipur, Rajasthan - 313902.
2. Anil Yadav S/o Kacharu Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Pindarma, Tehsil Bagidora, District Banswara, Rajasthan -
327634.
3. Hitesh Kumar Balai S/o Shambhulal Balai, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Ganoda, District Banswara, Rajasthan -
327021.
4. Kapil Bunkar S/o Lavji Bnker, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Choukhla, Tehsil Bagi Dora, District Banswara, Rajasthan
- 327605.
5. Babulal Yadav S/o Gyarasi Lal Yadav, Aged About 37
Years, R/o G.P.S. Indra Col. Raipur, District Pali, Rajasthan
- 306304.
6. Mahesh Yadav S/o Ramlal Yadav, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Ward No. 05, Yadav Mohalla Chokhala, Banswara,
Rajasthan - 327604.
7. Riya Trivedi D/o Prakash Trivedi, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Vpo Parda Mehta, Tehsil Obri, District Dungarpur,
Rajasthan - 314401.
8. Lokendra Tamboli S/o Kailash Chandra Tamboli, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o Jawahar Nagar, Pratapgarh,
Rajasthan - 312605.
9. Nayyum Kha S/o Vafad Kha, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Gadola Pratapgarh, Rajasthan - 312623.
10. Dharmendra Kumar S/o Shankar Lal, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Vpo Bhagora, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara,
Rajasthan - 327022.
11. Girirajprasad Sharma S/o Laxmi Narayan Sharma, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Office Of Chief Block Education
Office, Block Sarada, District Udaipur, Rajasthan -
313902.
12. Pradeep Suthar S/o Bhogilal Suthar, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Office Of Chief Block Education Office, Block Kotra,
District Udaipur, Rajasthan - 307025.
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:29:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/12/2025 at 06:26:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53002] (2 of 5) [CW-22812/2025]
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Rural And Panchayati Raj, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Udaipur.
5. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Pali.
6. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Pratapgarh.
7. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Dungarpur.
8. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Banswara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Bhanu Priya Vyas
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
06/12/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject
matter in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the
order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on
13.11.2019 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 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:
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:29:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53002] (3 of 5) [CW-22812/2025]
"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
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:29:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53002] (4 of 5) [CW-22812/2025]
the date the candidates stood lower in merit
were appointed and they have been granted
all consequential benefits of services.
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
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:29:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53002] (5 of 5) [CW-22812/2025]
benefits of seniority but they would be
entitled only to notional benefits."
3. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in same
terms as in Jetha Ram (supra).
4. All the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
135s-PoonamS/-
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:29:39 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
