[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manohar Singh Soda vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6446) on 4 February, 2026
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:6446]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8034/2020
Manohar Singh Soda S/o Shri Dalpat Singh Soda, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Vpo Bawri, Tehsil Choutan, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Joint Director (School Education), Jodhpur Division,
District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary
Education, Barmer, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
6. The Principal/peeo, Government Senior Secondary School
Sivkar, Panchayat Samiti Barmer, District Barmer,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Digvijay Singh Sodha for
Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, AGC.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
04/02/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following
prayers:-
"A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the Recovery
Order dated 16.07.2020 and Order dated 12.08.2020
(Annex-6) and any order regarding the recovery amount
of the petitioner, issued by the respondent authorities may
kindly be quashed and set aside.
B. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the
respondents may kindly be directed to not to recover the
amount of the petitioner which were released by his
respective order in pursuance of the direction of Hon'ble
Court as the petitioner are entitled from the same.
C. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the
respondents may kindly be directed to refund the recover
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 05:59:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6446] (2 of 4) [CW-8034/2020]
amount of the petitioner as recovered in pursuance of the
recovery order.
D. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the
respondents may kindly be directed το provide the
Seniority Benefits, Pay benefits and all service benefits
while count from his service as the similar situated
candidates were given appointment with all consequential
benefits.
E. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour
of the petitioner.
F. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be
allowed with costs."
2. Brief facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, are that
pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent-State for
the post of Teacher Grade-III, the petitioner participated in the
selection process but was not declared successful in 2008,
whereas similarly situated candidates were appointed.
Subsequently, under the same recruitment process, the petitioner
was appointed in 2014. Aggrieved by the delayed appointment,
the petitioner approached this Court, which vide order dated
11.01.2018 directed the respondents to grant the petitioner the
same benefits as extended to similarly situated candidates. In
compliance, vide order dated 12.04.2018, the petitioner's initial
appointment was treated as 28.01.2008, his services were
confirmed w.e.f. 28.01.2010, and notional and consequential
benefits were granted after due verification. However, vide order
dated 01.02.2019, the respondents directed recovery of the
alleged excess amount, followed by recovery orders dated
14.06.2020, 16.07.2020 and 12.08.2020 issued by the concerned
authorities. Despite representations, the petitioner's grievance
was not redressed. Aggrieved by the arbitrary recovery, the
petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 05:59:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6446] (3 of 4) [CW-8034/2020]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondents have initiated recovery proceedings against the
petitioner, however, the petitioner has not mislead or mis-
represented/concealed any fact before the respondents. He
submits that the recovery orders have been passed without any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is in violation of
Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for
the petitioner further submits that the issue involved in the
present writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated
13.11.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in DBSAW
No.293/2020: State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dal Chand along with
other connected appeals. He submits that the DBSAW
No.293/2020 was filed laying challenge to the order passed in the
case of Dal Chand Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP
No.3063/2019 and other connected writ petitions, wherein, the
Hon'ble Division Bench has modified the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge with the direction as follows:-
"15.The Rule 8 of the RSR as being followed by the State
Government is applicable to all. Accordingly, we find that
the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to
be modified to the said extent. We, therefore, hold that all
the writ petitioners would have to suffer revised pay
fixation of salary treating them notionally to have
completed probationer trainee period of two years."
4. He submits that, however, the Hon'ble Division Bench has
restrained the respondents from effecting recovery from the
petitioners in the case of Dal Chand (supra). Relevant paras are
reproduced as under:-
"21.The writ petitioners, therefore, cannot be said to be at
fault, hence, while we uphold the order passed by the
State Government for making re-fixation done only after
considering the probationer trainee period, we do not find
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 05:59:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6446] (4 of 4) [CW-8034/2020]
it a case where we should allow the State to make
recoveries from the teachers who are at the lowest rank of
the services namely; on the post of Teacher Gr-III.
22. Our view is also buttressed from the latest views
taken by the Apex Court following the aforesaid judgment
of "Thomas Daniel"(supra) and "Rafiq Masih (White
Washer)"(supra) in the case of "Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. vs.
The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors.":2025 INSC 449 and
the earlier judgment of "Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs. State of
Bihar & Ors.":2024 INSC 591.
23. We, accordingly, modify the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge to the aforesaid extent. All the
appeals are, accordingly, party allowed.
24. All pending applications stand disposed of.
25. A copy of this order be placed in each connected
files."
5. Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to
refute that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is
squarely covered by the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the
Hon'ble Division Bench in DBSAW No.293/2020: State of
Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dal Chand along with other connected
appeals.
6. Thus, in view of the submissions made and taking into
consideration the fact that the issue involved is squarely covered
by Dal Chand (supra), the writ petition is allowed and the order
dated 16.07.2020 & 12.08.2020 (Annex.6) are quashed and set
aside, further, with a direction that the petitioner would have to
suffer revised pay fixation of salary treating him notionally to have
completed probationer trainee period of two years.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
100-pradeep/-
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 05:59:05 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
