[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajabala vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:53001) on 6 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:53001]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16340/2025
Rajabala D/o Keshra Ram W/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village Ninan, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Directorate, Primary Education, Bikaner
Rajasthan.
3. The Secretory, Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Chairman, Staff Selection Board, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. The District Education Officer, Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manjeet Godara.
For Respondent(s) : None Present.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
06/12/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the final disposal.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely
covered by the judgment dated 26.05.2025 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in the batch of special appeals led by D.B.
Special Appeal (Writ) No. 31/2024 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
14881/2023 titled as "Deepika Kunwar Chundawat Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors.".
(Uploaded on 08/12/2025 at 10:46:35 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53001] (2 of 3) [CW-16340/2025]
3. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents
though their names have been reflected in the cause list.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner had appeared in the examination for the post of
Upper Primary School Teacher Level-II in the category of OBC NCL
without claiming any relexation. In spite of that, the respondents
have not allowed the migration of the petitioner and only on that
ground, she was denied the appointment in the general category
though she secured higher marks in the merit list and was in the
consideration zone for appointment. As stated above, this
controversy is squarely covered by the judgment in Deepika
Kunwar Chundawat's case (supra).
5. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 26.05.2025
rendered in the case of Deepika Kunwar Chundawat's case (supra)
reads as follows:-
"46. As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion, the
order passed by the learned Single Judge in the batch
of writ petitions assailed in these appeals cannot be
sustained and is set aside. The writ petitions are
consequently allowed and all the writ petitioners are
held entitled to benefit of rule of migration. That
means, if they have obtained marks more than the
general category candidates, in the recruitment
process, they are entitled to be considered against
general category posts. Accordingly, State would be
obliged to revise the select list of general category
candidates and the petitioners would be entitled to
appointment as teachers against the existing
vacancies from the date other general category
candidates were appointed, with all consequential
(Uploaded on 08/12/2025 at 10:46:35 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53001] (3 of 3) [CW-16340/2025]
benefits of seniority, pay fixation and notional benefits
but not the actual salary to which they would be
entitled only from the date of this order.".
6. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is also
allowed in the same terms as in Deepika Kunwar Chundawat's
case (supra).
7. All the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
118-Mohan/-
(Uploaded on 08/12/2025 at 10:46:35 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
