Coordinate Bench referred petitioners to make representation to Director for appointment benefits. This Court discharged writ proceedings requiring representation within two weeks for reasoned decision.
Writ proceedings closed requiring petitioner to submit representation within two weeks for decision by respondent No.2 within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 10959/2018
Suresh Chand Sharma S/o Shri Damodar Prasad Sharma , R/o Village Jhupdiya Rajawatan, Post Nayabas, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa, Presently Working On The Post Of Pti Grade-Iii, In District Sawaimadhopur.
----Petitioner
Versus - 1. The State Rajastha , 2. 4-L2. 3. Djstr~ct Education Officer-I, Secondary tion on , Sawaimadhopur
F%-- =
----Respondents
a$Qig
A?? 33 *dla@x
" 8X- .ems :-*we& ..- -.,
z "ihrb-aq-
For Petitioner(s) "$bt~~r& as ksa
For Respondent(s) &@%%=+a,$ I C? . ?;,.? 4- %?a
..*..
ib'
HoNIBLE MR. JusTIg%2 GH SIRADHANA
@ 8"
17/07/2018
Learned counse ubmits that defects,
17/07/2018
pointed out by the regist
Heard.
Having regard to the nature of the controversy raised in the instant writ. application; matter has been taken up for final disposal at this stage.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in somewhat identical controversy, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, referring to the earlier opinions, in the case of Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP Number 7283 of 2014,
allowed opportunity to the petitioners therein, to make a representation to the respondent No.2 - Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, observing thus:
"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 writ petition not to
e writ petition that in the matter of in the same candidates were nt from the date the candidates st it were appointed of services.
granted to the candidates who ;i2tccj$l?meomerit than the 7 "$ %a 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 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 ther petitioners to make a representation to resuondent no.2 - Director,
'Secondary Education, Bikaner, along-with 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 place than the
It is further c sent; the petitioner would be satisfied, . ts are directed to consider and decide t f the petitioner in the backdrop of the adj n the case of Manoj Khandelwal & Ors time frame, which the petitioner is ready within two weeks hereinafter.
In view of the li ed; the instant writ proceedings are closed Ion to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation enclosing a copy of the order in the case of Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. (supra).
In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the respondent No.2 - Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, is directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order addressing grievances of the petitioner for extending the same relief as accorded in favour of
[CW-10959/2018]
(4 of 4)
ma no^ Khandelwal & Ors.
The exercise aforesaid shall be undertaking by the respondent No.2 - Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.
In case, the covered by the adjudication as case of Manoj same baefit. Y
writ
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to提请 treatment as appointment from the date candidates lower in merit were appointed.
Whether respondents are directed to treat the petitioner's appointment with all consequential benefits of service.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶11
Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP Number 7283 of 2014
Suman Bai and Another Vs. State and OthersReferred¶13
Suman Bai and Another Vs. State and Others - 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381
Suresh Chand Sharma
The State Rajasthan
District Education Officer-I, Sawaimadhopur
Mr. Justice Gh. Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
