Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mukesh Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 August, 2020
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6928/2020
1. Mukesh Singh S/o Samdar Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Madni, Post Manda, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar.
2. Bas Ram Mali S/o Har Phul Mali, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village And Post Khatva, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa.
3. Mukesh Kumar Saini S/o Kailash Chandra Saini, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Nai Dhani Jairam Ka Wali, Post Nangal Bheem, Tehsil Shri Madhopur District Sikar.
4. Ramesh Kumar S/o Bhaga Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Aam Chohta Sugaliya Balotan Bedana, Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore.
5. Shama Parween D/o Nazeeruddin Beg, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Railway Workshop Maszid Ke Pass, Gali No. 23, Rampura Basti, Lalgarh, Bikaner.
----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.
3. The Joint Director, Secondary Education Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanwar Singh
(Downloaded on 13/08/2020 at 08:47:55 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-6928/2020]
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
13/08/2020
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment of this Court in Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. :
S.B.C.W.P. No. 7283/2014, decided on 16.07.2014 at Jaipur Bench and the said judgment has been followed in Krishan Lal & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 19179/2017, decided on 30.10.2017 at Jaipur Bench. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra) and Krishan Lal (supra) claims learned counsel.
In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with the similar directions as given in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra), which read as under:-
"This Court in Suman Bai and Another Vs. State and Others - 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381, held that candidates in lower order of merit cannot become entitled merely because they had approached court earlier. Petitioners had a fresh cause of action for approaching in such situation and their writ petition not barred either as res judicata or as being him in properly constituted. This directed the respondents to treat petitioners senior to respondents, who were in lower order of merit.
It is further contended in the writ petition that in the matter of School Lecturers (English) in the same Department, where appointments were delayed because of the fault of the State authorities, the candidates were accorded appointment from the date the candidates stood lower in merit were appointed and they have been granted all consequential benefits of services.
The petitioners approached the respondents by way of representations for extending them same benefits of service which have been granted to the candidates who stood lower in merit than the petitioners, but till date nothing has been done. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for a direction to the respondents to treat their appointment from the date the candidates lower in merit, were given, with all consequential benefits of service, such (Downloaded on 13/08/2020 at 08:47:55 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-6928/2020] as seniority, continuity of service, pay fixation, grant of annual grade increments.
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, alongwith 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."
(DINESH MEHTA),J 52-A.Arora/-
(Downloaded on 13/08/2020 at 08:47:55 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)