Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manvendra Singh Bhati vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:24592) on 21 May, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:24592]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5433/2025
1. Manvendra Singh Bhati S/o Shri Nahar Sngh Bhati, Aged
About 36 Years, Resident Of 18, Rajpooto Ka Baas,
Ghodawat, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Sachin Sharma S/o Shri Shambhu Dayal Sharma, Aged
About 37 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 132, Shrirampuri,
Colony, Nuwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director General Of Police, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Deputy Commissioner Of Police (Headquarter), Police
Commissionerate, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahavir Singh.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati, GC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
21/05/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits 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) and
therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief as
[2025:RJ-JD:24592] (2 of 3) [CW-5433/2025]
granted in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra) and Krishan Lal
(supra).
2. Learned counsel for the respondents agrees to the above
submission and admits that the issue is covered by Manoj
Khandelwal (supra).
3. In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by
the petitioners 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 become
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.
The petitioners approached the respondents by way 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, 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
[2025:RJ-JD:24592] (3 of 3) [CW-5433/2025]
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."
4. The order has been passed based on the submissions made in
the petition, 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, the
petitioners would be entitled to the relief.
5. The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
181-Anil Singh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
