Disposed

Tarun Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Mar 2016CW/3952/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A division bench disposed of a writ petition filed by school teachers seeking appointment dates and service benefits equivalent to those granted to candidates ranked lower in merit, directing the State of Rajasthan to consider the matter via a representation.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioners to make a representation to respondent no.2 for a speaking decision on extending service benefits within three months, contingent on verification of facts regarding delayed appoi

Tarun Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 3952/2019

¶3

Tarun Choudhary S/o Shri Ishwar Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Janiyon Ki Dhani, Jasnathpura, Thob, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶4

Girwar Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Bagh Singh,, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 41, Rajput Mohalla, Takur Ji Mandir, Ajeetsar, Tehsil Ajeetsar, District Churu, Rajasthan.

¶5

Ranveer S/o Shri Rohitaswa Kumar,, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Near Govt. School, Vpo Sahad, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶6

Keshari Chand S/o Shri Jora Ram,, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Jambh Sagar, Vpo Bhinyasar, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶10

The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶11

The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶12

The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Zone, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Ajmeriya. For Respondent(s) :

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶16

Order

¶17

14/03/2019

¶18

This writ petition has been filed by petitioners seeking reliefs as indicated in the writ petition.

¶19

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners 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

¶20

(2 of 3) [CW-3952/2019]

¶21

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, and therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra) and Krishan Lal (supra).

¶22

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:-

¶23

“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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CW-3952/2019]

¶28

given, with all consequential benefits of service, such as seniority, continuity of service, pay fixation, grant of annual grade increments.

¶29

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.”

¶30

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶31

294-PKS/-

Tarun Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paramjeet Singh and Anr. Vs Simran Singh Barad and Ors.

Mool Shankar and Ors. Vs Board of Revenue, Ajmer and Ors.

Akshay Mohata Minor Vs Union of India and Ors.

Amit Kumar Sharma and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

M/S. Devshree Cement Limited Vs Stat E and Ors.

Barkat Khan and Ors. Vs State and Ors.