Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Subhash Meena vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:29524) on 8 July, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:29524]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9442/2025
1. Subhash Meena S/o Shri Kalu Lal Meena, Aged About 45
Years, R/o 295, Ward No. 1, Meeno Ka Mohalla, Nindar,
Near Shiv Temple, Via Amber District- Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Shikha Gupta W/o Tarun Gupta, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Ward No. 14 6B-14 Mahaveer Nagar Vistar Yojna, District-
Kota, Rajasthan.
3. Rajveer Meena S/o Kalu Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
Meeno Ka Mohalla, Nindar, Vishwakarma Industrial Area,
District- Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
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.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.P. Raj Singh
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
08/07/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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:29524] (2 of 3) [CW-9442/2025]
the petitioners would be satisfied if the respondents are directed
to decide the representation(s) of the petitioners 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 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(s) of the
petitioners if filed within a period of fifteen days from now. The
representation(s) 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. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the
representation(s) has been issued only with a view to ensure
expeditious redressal of petitioners' grievance.
[2025:RJ-JD:29524] (3 of 3) [CW-9442/2025]
5. The order has been passed based on the submissions made
in the petition and by learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners.
6. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
33-nitin/c-11/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
