Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Virendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 March, 2020
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18243/2019
1. Virendra Singh S/o Shri Shambu Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 3/173 , Atalnagar, Nimbaheda, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
2. Suresh Sharma S/o Shri Pooran Mal Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Vpo Babekhar, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
3. Lal Singh S/o Shri Kishan Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Kadecho Ka Guda, Post Pilantri, Tehsil And District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
4. Suresh Chandra Dangi S/o Shri Ram Chandra Dangi, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Palod, Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
5. Shailendra Singh Sisodiya S/o Shri Dulhe Singh Sisodiya, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Depur, Rajsamand, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
6. Hanuman Prasad Chaupdar S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Chaupdar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Mali Mohalla, Malarna Chawk, Sawaimadhopur, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
7. Santosh Kumari Sukhwal S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Mogana Nathdwara, Rajsamand, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
8. Virendra Singh Chundawat S/o Shri Shiv Singh Chundawat, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Bhagwan Pura, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
9. Mujjasim Bhati S/o Mohammad Saleem, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Bhartiya Kue Ke Pass, Nai Sadak, Churu, District Churu, Rajasthan.
10. Gopal Lal Teli S/o Shri Vadan Lal Teli, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Siyana (Amet), Rajsamand, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
11. Madan Lal Kumawat S/o Shri Goma Lal Kumawat, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Emdi, Jk Tyre Factory, Kankroli, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
12. Neelima Sharma S/o Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Nathdwara, Rajsamand, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 04/03/2020 at 09:09:11 PM)(2 of 3) [CW-18243/2019]
13. Balveer Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Chatar Singh Chouhan, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Jetela, Uthnol, Rajsamand, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
14. Kamini Audichya D/o Shri Gopal Audichya, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Nathdwara, Rajsamand, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
15. Kavita Kothari D/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Kothari, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 15, Mahesh Nagar, Rajsamand, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
16. Kishan Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Bheem Singh Chouhan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Bhesakmed, Nathdwara, Rajsamand, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
17. Mohd. Ishaque S/o Shri Ibrahim Ali, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Sadat Mohalla, Malpura, Tonk, District Tonk, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Rajsamand, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
5. District Establishment Committee, Through Its Chairman, Zila Parishad Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
6. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary Education, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Jangid JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 04/03/2020 (Downloaded on 04/03/2020 at 09:09:11 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-18243/2019] It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue raised in the present writ petition is similar to that in Krishna Bairagi & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW No. 767/2018, decided on 09.05.2018, whereas following the judgment in the case of Sandeep Kumar Bishnoi & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors.:
SBCW No. 40312017, decided on 19.05.2017, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners were allowed and the petitioners were held entitled to similar reliefs as granted in the case of Sandeep Kumar Bishnoi (supra).
In the case of Sandeep Kumar Bishnoi (supra), it was inter alia directed by this Court as under:-
"In view of the above, the instant bunch of writ petitions, stands allowed following the judgment dated 02.5.2017, in the case of Choturam Regar Vs. State (supra).
The respondent State is directed to undertake the exercise of confirming the petitioner(s) as contemplated under Rule 27-B of the Rajasthan Services Rules, 1958. The needful be done within a period of three months from today.
No order as to costs."
In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of.
The respondents are directed to do the needful qua the petitioners in terms of the directions issued in the case of Sandeep Kumar Bishnoi (supra).
The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 239-skm/-
(Downloaded on 04/03/2020 at 09:09:11 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)