[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Anita Borana (Now Anita Bhati) vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:9143) on 19 February, 2026

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:9143]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15800/2025

Anita Borana (Now Anita Bhati) D/o Pukhraj Borana, Aged About
44 Years, A- 77 Parshavnath Colony, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur,
Rajasthan. Presently Posted As School Lecturer Commerce.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                     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. M.L. Deora
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Bhupesh Charan for
                                 Mr. N.K. Mehta, GC


               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

19/02/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following

prayers:-

A. By an appropriate writ, order direction, orders of respondents dated 29.08.2023 (Annex-8) and 30.10.2017 (Annex-9) to the extent of restricting/denying the Pay fixation, Seniority, Service Benefits and Notional Benefits of the petitioners as granted to lower meritorious for the post of School Lecturer(Commerce) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.10.2015 (Annex-1) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

B. By an appropriate writ, order ог direction, rejection orders (Annex-10) of denying the Pay fixation, Seniority, Service Benefits and Notional Benefits of the petitioners as granted to lower meritorious for the post of School Lecturer (Commerce) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.10.2015 (Annex-1) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

C. By an appropriate writ, order ог direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to give all benefits of Higher pay seniority, annual grade, increment, and other

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:31:09 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9143] (2 of 6) [CW-15800/2025]

service benefits including the selection scale and all the notional benefits of School for post Lecturer (Commerce) to the petitioner as similarly situated candidates and lower meritorious candidates have been given all benefits in pursuance of the advertisement year, 2015 with all consequential benefits.

D. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefits like pay fixation, seniority and notional benefits as granted and given to the similarly situated candidates and lower meritorious candidates appointed and joined in the similar manner in the same selection process. E. By an appropriate writ, order ог direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the entire benefits including the prevailing interest to the petitioners as per the Hon'ble High Court orders. F. Any other appropriate writ, order ог 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 petitioners.

G. Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kındly be allowed with costs."

2. Brief facts giving rise to instant petition are that the

respondent RPSC issued an advertisement dated 16.10.2015

inviting online applications for School Lecturer posts in various

subjects; the petitioner applied, appeared in the selection process,

secured marks in her category, and was provisionally selected per

the subject-wise merit list and published marks, but following an

Apex Court SLP by certain candidates directing RPSC to revise

results for the petitioner and similarly situated persons, counseling

led to her appointment dated 24.06.2017 (amended to

01.07.2017), with joining on 03.07.2017 before the 05.07.2017

cutoff; however, post-probation, respondents fixed her pay lower

than higher-meritorious candidates like her (while lower-

meritorious got higher pay) by invoking a Finance Department

notification dated 30.10.2017 that unlawfully changed rules mid-

process without seeking candidate options despite financial

impact, ignored her representation, denied benefits granted to

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:31:09 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9143] (3 of 6) [CW-15800/2025]

others per High Court ruling in S.B.C.W.P. No. 7283/2014 (Manoj

Khandelwal) and government directions dated 24.06.2017 (later

rejected for her citing 29.08.2023 order), rendering the action

unjust, unfair, and illegal. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue

involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the

order dated 22.01.2026 passed in the case of Kirodi Lal Meena

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.: SBCWP No.339/2026,

wherein, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the writ

petition.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to

refute that the issue involved in the present writ petition is

squarely covered by the order dated 22.01.2026 passed in Kirodi

Lal Meena (supra).

5. The order dated 22.01.2026 passed in Kirodi Lal Meena

(supra) is reproduced as under:-

"8. Having considered the above contentions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, the undisputed facts in the present case are that the all the School Lecturers were selected and appointed in the same selection process in pursuance of the same advertisement for the post of School Lecturers. However, they were issued different appointment orders i.e. on 23.06.20217, 27.06.2017 and 28.06.2017.

9. Unequal pay fixation was the result of adopting of two different joining dates by the respondents. The persons who have joined their service prior to 30.06.2017 were granted one additional increment whereas, the present petitioners, who have joined their services subsequent to 30.06.2017, were granted one increment less than the other group of employees.

10. The procedure adopted by the respondents is contrary to the established principles of service jurisprudence. The candidates who have been selected, appointed and joined their services in the same recruitment process pursuant to the very same advertisement on the same post of School Lecturers but their appointment order were issued on different dates and they joined their services prior to

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:31:09 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9143] (4 of 6) [CW-15800/2025]

30.06.2017 and subsequent to 30.06.2017 but before the last cut-off date for joining i.e. 10.07.2017, they cannot be discriminated in the matter of fixation of pay. This Court is of the view that the respondents should have adopted either the first date of joining or the last date of joining with regard to the same recruitment process so as to extend the benefit of annual grant of grade increments. They cannot adopt two different dates of joining for extending the benefit of annual grade increments among the candidates in the same recruitment process.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents tried to justify the action of the respondents in extending unequal benefit of granting one annual grade increment is mainly based on the Circular issued by the Department of Finance dated 30.09.2017. A perusal of the Circular makes it clear the same is contrary to the settled/ established principles of law and also against the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be two different dates of joining for the purpose of granting of increments to the employees selected and appointed in the same recruitment process. Such discrimination committed by the respondents is unsustainable even if the same is based on the circular of the Finance Department. The respondents should have ignored the provisions of the Circular in the matter of granting annual grade increments.

12. The respondents should have adopted first date of joining or last date of joining so as to grant annual grade increments or any other date which should be before the last cut-off date for joining of the employees in the same recruitment process. They cannot be permitted to adopt two different dates of joining in respect of the candidates appointed in the same selection process for grant of increments and fixation of pay-scale.

13. Therefore, the action of the respondents in adopting two different joining dates for fixation of salary by giving annual grade increment to one and not to another is, in such circumstances, illegal and unsustainable.

14. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The actions of respondents in unequal fixation of pay among the persons selected and appointed in the same recruitment process based on their dates of joining are set aside. The respondents have to treat all such candidates as a single unit for grant of annual grade increments whether, they have joined prior to 30.06.2017 or subsequent to 30.06.2017. Any anomaly arising due to adoption of such improper dates of joining for the purpose of granting one annual grade increment among the candidates appointed in the same recruitment shall be rationalized and shall be corrected. For this purpose, if any correction is required to be carried out by the

(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 12:31:09 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9143] (5 of 6) [CW-15800/2025]

respondents, they may make necessary corrections in their official records in the matter of grant of annual grade increment after giving notice to affected parties. The respondents are directed to carry out the needful exercise after hearing all the parties concerned, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.