Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kanhaiya Lal Paliwali vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:47990) on 7 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:47990]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21838/2025
1. Kanhaiya Lal Paliwali S/o Bheru Lal Paliwal, Aged About
28 Years, Constable Belt No. 719, R/o Semtal, Tehsil
Gogunda, District Udaipur, Raj.
2. Umesh Dangi S/o Ganesh Lal Dangi, Aged About 27
Years, Constable Driver Belt No. 2111, R/o 39 Kanpur
Khera, Para Khet, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, Raj.
3. Pala Ram Meghwal S/o Tilok Ram Meghwal, Aged About
30 Years, Constable Belt No. 3008, R/o Ward No. 04,
Meghwalo Ka Bas, Dhoopaliya, District Bikaner, Raj.
4. Mahendra Singh S/o Gotam Singh Rathore, Aged About
23 Years, Constable Belt No 2043, R/o Hatel, Gurel,
District Udaipur, Raj.
5. Lalit Singh Solanki S/o Indra Singh Solanki, Aged About
25 Years, Constable Belt No 681, R/o Wadi, Maruwas,
Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur, Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur,raj.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance (Rules),
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur, Raj.
3. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi,
Jaipur, Raj.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Udaipur, District Udaipur, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. OP Sangwa
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
07/11/2025
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 12:57:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47990] (2 of 3) [CW-21838/2025]
1. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the
issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by the
judgment in Dara Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.11973/2012, decided on 17.12.2012.
2. In the case of Dara Singh(supra), a coordinate Bench of this
Court, inter alia, directed as under:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
realizing the mistake, appointment has been given,
thus, grievance of petitioner to the extent is
redressed, but appointment should have been made
effective from the date candidates lesser in merit
were given appointment with notional benefits.
In view of the prayer made and taking note of
the order dated 13.12.2012 whereby petitioner is
given appointment realizing mistake by the
respondents, I consider it proper to direct that
aforesaid appointment should be treated from the
date when lesser meritorious candidates were given.
The petitioner would, accordingly, be entitled to the
notional benefits and seniority from the date persons
with less merit were given appointment. The actual
benefits would be allowed from the date of joining
pursuant to the order dated 13.12.2012. With the
aforesaid, writ petition stands disposed of."
3. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the petitioners may
be permitted to file a detailed representation before the
competent authorities for redressal of his grievances.
4. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed
of with liberty to the petitioners to file a representation to the
competent authorities of the department and the competent
authorities of the department are directed to decide the same
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 12:57:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47990] (3 of 3) [CW-21838/2025]
representation, keeping in mind the law laid down by this Court
in the case of Dara Singh(supra).
5. 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.
6. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
267-Samvedana/-
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 12:57:03 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
