Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Madhu Bala vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:24467) on 20 May, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:24467]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9943/2025
Madhu Bala D/o Vijay Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village
Basantpura Post Bhatiwara District Jhunjhunun, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. District Programme Coordinator And District Collector,
Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pratapgarh,
Rajasthan.
5. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Arnod District
Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Bhati
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
20/05/2025
1. Office has made a note that the petitioner falls under Jaipur
jurisdiction.
2. However, as is revealed from office order dated 27.11.2024
(Annex.2), the petitioner is at present posted at Pratapgarh which
definitely falls within the jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Office note is hence, overruled.
[2025:RJ-JD:24467] (2 of 3) [CW-9943/2025]
4. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that
the respondent Department be directed to grant notional benefits
qua all service benefits to the petitioner with effect from
27.06.2013 i.e. the date when all the other persons were given
appointment on the post of LDC qua the advertisement of the year
2013.
5. It is admitted on record that the petitioner was in the waiting
list and did not find place in the first select list as issued by the
respondent Department.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner
was granted appointment subsequently after the directions passed
by the Court to operate the waiting list. Meaning thereby, she was
granted appointment after the wait list been operated. That is to
say, on the date when the candidates falling in the first select list
were afforded appointment, she was not entitled to be appointed.
7. The rationale behind grant of notional benefits is that if any
candidate who although was eligible to be appointed, was not
afforded appointment at the relevant point of time and any other
candidate who was lower in merit, had been afforded
appointment, the former would be entitled to all the notional
service benefits which he would have otherwise been granted had
he been granted appointment at that point of time.
8. In the specific opinion of this Court, the above rationale
cannot be extended to the extent that every person who was
granted appointment qua a recruitment process subsequently,
would be entitled to notional benefits. To be held entitled for the
grant of notional benefits, a person would definitely have not only
to plead but also to prove that he/she was entitled to be appointed
[2025:RJ-JD:24467] (3 of 3) [CW-9943/2025]
on the date when his/her counterparts were afforded appointment
and further that some person lower in merit qua the same
recruitment process was granted appointment prior to him/her.
9. Herein, not a single averment to the said effect has been
made.
10. The judgment as relied upon by counsel for the petitioner in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7283/2014: Manoj Khandelwal &
Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (decided on 16.07.2014) as
well as Nand Kishore Sharma & Ors. Vs. The State of
Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12109/2018
(decided on 18.07.2018) does not lay down the ratio that every
person appointed subsequently in pursuance to a recruitment
process would be entitled to the notional benefits.
11. No case for interference is made out. The writ petition is
hence, dismissed.
12. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
393-manila/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
