Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anju Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:40816) on 12 September, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:40816]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17770/2025
1. Anju Choudhary W/o Gurudatt Solanki, Aged About 36
Years, Mahoo Khas, Ghonsla Karuali, District Karauli,
Rajasthan.
2. Sudarshan Vaghela S/o Pooran Mal Vaghela, Aged About
34 Years, Surya Colony, Naya Gaon Road, Pali, District
Pali, Rajasthan.
3. Ekta Soni D/o Sohan Lal Soni, Aged About 34 Years, 712,
Ward No. 7 Vivekanand Colony, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar,
District Sikar, Rajasthan.
4. Rajendra Joshi S/o Laxminarayan Joshi, Aged About 42
Years, Joshiyon Ka Bass Hadiya Kuwa, Sojat, District Pali,
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.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudarshan Vaghela (petitioner
No.2 present in person).
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
12/09/2025
1. Petitioner No.2, present in person, 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
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 01:55:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40816] (2 of 3) [CW-17770/2025]
the petitioners would be satisfied if the respondents are directed
to decide their representation 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, along with 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 of the
petitioners, if filed, within a period of fifteen days from now. The
representation 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. 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, appropriate
orders would be passed in favour of the petitioners.
5. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide their
representation has been issued only with a view to ensure
expeditious redressal of petitioners' grievance. The same may not
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 01:55:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40816] (3 of 3) [CW-17770/2025]
be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a
particular manner.
6. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
248-/Devesh/-
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 01:55:55 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
