[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ishwar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:3652) on 21 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:3652]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11040/2025
1. Ishwar Singh S/o Amar Singh, Aged About 47 Years,
Village And Post Deri, Tehsil Kherwara, District Udaipur.
2. Balveer Singh S/o Jawan Singh, Aged About 49 Years,
Village Devnal, Post Brothi (Bra), Tehsil Kherwara, District
Udaipur.
3. Jeevat Singh S/o Kure Singh, Aged About 49 Years,
Village Gohawara, Post Katarwas, Tehsil Kherwara, District
Udaipur.
4. Jagdish Prasad Parmar S/o Bal Ram Parmar, Aged About
47 Years, Village And Post Bhagorpara- Patiya, Tehsil
Kherwara, District Udaipur.
5. Ram Lal Meena S/o Laxmans Ram Meena, Aged About 46
Years, Village And Post Bodiwasa, Nayagaon, District
Udaipur.
6. Sukhlal Bhil S/o Kalu Ram Bhil, Aged About 46 Years,
Village And Post Asariwara, Post Thana, Tehsil Kherwara,
District Udaipur.
7. Ashish Kumar Meena S/o Dharmaji, Aged About 44 Years,
Village Amarpura, Post Larathi, Tehsil Kherwara, District
Udaipur.
8. Harish Chandra S/o Mani Lal, Aged About 50 Years,
Village Barna, Post Ghodi, District Udaipur.
9. Aruna Bhaghora S/o Dhularam, Aged About 46 Years,
Village Barodhi Bhilan, Post Katarwas Khurd, Tehsil
Kherwara, District Udaipur.
10. Kamlesh Garasiya S/o Kachara Garasia, Aged About 45
Years, G.u.p.ss. Kundlawas, Rawash, Tehsil Gogunda,
District Udaipur.
11. Priti Rawat D/o Khailash Chandra, Aged About 47 Years,
Village And Post Uplafala, Khandioberi, District Udaipur.
12. Ashok Kumar Meena S/o Badari Lal, Aged About 49 Years,
Village And Post Kandal, Tehsil Kherwara, District Udaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Elementary Education, Government
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 10:46:03 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/01/2026 at 08:49:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3652] (2 of 4) [CW-11040/2025]
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner
3. Dy. Director, Elementary Education Department, Udaipur
Division, Udaipur.
4. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramdev Potalia
Mr. Sunil Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment / Order
21/01/2026
1. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, the
matter is taken up and heard for the final disposal at the
admission stage.
2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the
inaction of the respondents in not granting the notional benefits
relating to service at par with teachers appointed in the year
2005.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners underwent
for selection process in pursuance of advertisement dated
02.06.2004 for the posts of Primary Teacher and Upper Primary
Teacher in the competitive examination held in the year 2004. The
petitioners were successful in the selection process. Persons who
were less meritorious than the petitioners were appointed in the
year 2005; however, the petitioners were appointed in 2006. The
delay in appointment was on account of preparing a common list
for both Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers.
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 10:46:03 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3652] (3 of 4) [CW-11040/2025]
Subsequently, after intervention by the Court, directions were
issued to prepare separate lists for the two categories. Some
appointments were made before Court's directions to prepare
independent selection lists. Consequently, certain individuals,
although lower in rank than the petitioners, were appointed prior
to them. The petitioners accepted the appointment orders issued
in 2006.
4. The said appointment orders were not given retrospective
effect, and for all purposes, the appointment must be considered
from 2006, unless it is explicitly stated that the appointed is to be
treated retrospectively with certain notional benefits. In the
absence of such provisions, the petitioners are considered
aggrieved by the 2006 appointment orders. While the petitioners
have the right to claim parity with juniors who were appointed
earlier, this grievance has not been pursued for over 20 years.
5. It appears that petitioners previously filed a writ petition in
2019 seeking directions to have their claims considered. Even
after directions were issued, the respondents allegedly showed
indifference to the Court's order. The petitioners, however, have
been negligent in exercising their rights. Instead of promptly
taking steps against the impugned order, they remained inactive
for more than six years following the earlier order. After such a
long delay, they have now filed the present writ petition.
6. considering the conduct of the petitioners in not challenging
the appointment order earlier and the conduct of the petitioner in
executing the earlier order, the Court finds that the petitioners
have been negligent in protecting their own rights. The relief in
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an equitable jurisdiction,
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 10:46:03 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3652] (4 of 4) [CW-11040/2025]
and the Court is not inclined to extend relief to persons who have
been negligent of their own rights for almost 20 years. Therefore,
the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay
and laches.
7. As a result, the writ petition is dismissed.
8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
172-GKaviya/-
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 10:46:03 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
