Disposed

Karunesh Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC18 Jul 2018CW/11017/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought identical relief in identical matters where the court had already directed a review DPC, protected seniority, and ensured posting due to departmental fault. The court noted compliance in other cases and disposed of the current matter by upholding previous undertakings.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 14th May, 2018 vacated; writ proceedings closed; respondents directed to execute undertakings read with directions given in Kailash Chand Meena case.

Karunesh Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Raj and… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 11017/2018

¶3

Karunesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ram Das Sharma , R/o Vakil Ki Kuiya, Mohalla Gopalgarh, Bharatpur Rajasthan.

¶4

Ram Kishan Mali S/o Shri Jagdish Mali , R/o Village Katalpura Maliyan, Tehsil And District Sawaimadhopur.

¶5

Richa Arora D/o Shri Madan Lal , R/o 180/165, Sector 18, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Education Department , Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

The Director, Secondary Education , Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶10

Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Education Department , Government Of Rajasthan, Bharatpur.

¶11

Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Education Department , Government Of Rajasthan, Bharatpur.

¶12

District Education Officer, Elementary Education , Government Of Rajasthan, Bharatpur.

¶13

	---	-Respondents
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sandeep Saxena
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rakesh Pareek, ADEO	(Legal)

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶15

Order

¶16

18/07/2018

¶17

Mr. Sandeep Saxena, counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners would be satisfied, if order made in identical matters writ applications i.e. SBCWP No. 10496/2018 (Panaj Upadhyay and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.), after affording an

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

[CW-11017/2018]

¶20

opportunity of hearing to the respondents on 24^th December, 2018, is made in the case of the petitioners as well.

¶21

In the case of Pankaj Upadhyay (Supra), this Court upon

¶22

hearing the parties on 24^th May, 2018, made the following order:

¶23

“Mr. Kishan Lal Devatpal, Dy. Director, present in person.

¶24

The State-respondents have very fairly admitted the errors in non-rectification of the seniority lists and DPC conducted on 3^rd May, 2018. The respondents have agreed to allow the petitioners in the ongoing counselling and to conduct a review DPC at the earliest for redressal of the grievances of the petitioners.

¶25

Consequent upon, review DPC, posting will be accorded to the petitioners, according to their position, in the counselling.

¶26

The respondents have also agreed to allow the petitioners in the ongoing conselling process.

¶27

The respondents have assured this court to complete the process of review DPC within six weeks and file compliance report in the one of the matter, (SBCWP. No.11302/2018: Kailash Chand Meena and another Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. ), which has already been posted to 31^st July, 2018, on the very same issue.

¶28

In the case of Kailash Chand Meena (supra) , this Court on 23^rd May, 2018, made the following order:

¶29

“Mr. Rakesh Kumar Pareek, Additional Education Officer, has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent – department, who was furnished with a copy of the writ application on 22nd May, 2018.

¶30

He further submits that taking note of the contents of the writ application, corrective measures have been initiated so much so an order dated 22nd May, 2018, has been issued by the competent authority. Thus, grievances of the petitioners have been redressed.

¶31

Referring to an order dated 1st December, 2016, made in SBCWP No.16601 of 2016: Kamal Kishore Kuldeep v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., adjudicating upon, along with identical matters, in somewhat identical factual matrix situation;

¶32

(3 of 4)

¶33

[CW-11017/2018]

¶34

he urged that directions were issued while disposing off those matters to hold the Review DPC within a period of six weeks and accord benefit of seniority in the event of the petitioners being recommended by the Review DPC. The promotions so made were to relate back to the date when those petitioners were eligible or their juniors were promoted, irrespective of date of joining for the petitioners could not participate in the counseling for the fault of the respondents.

¶35

Having heard the petitioners, present in person and representative of the respondent – department and in view of the order dated 22nd May, 2018, the respondents are directed to :

¶36

A. Hold the Review DPC within a period of six weeks so as to redress grievances of the petitioners.

¶37

B. In the event of recommendations made in favour of the petitioners by the Review DPC; seniority of the petitioners shall be kept intact and the seniority to promoted post shall also be reckoned from the date when they were eligible and/or their juniors were promoted, irrespective of date of joining; and C. the respondent-department would ensure posting of the petitioners at the desired station(s), subject to availability of the post(s), for they have been precluded in the counseling for the fault of the respondents.

¶38

Needless to observe that the respondents would ensure compliance of this order not only in the case at hand but also wherein they received representation(s), from the employees aggrieved in this regard.

¶39

A copy of this order be furnished to the respondent-department for onward transmission and necessary compliance, without fail.

¶40

Matter be listed again in the Court on 31st July, 2018, as prayed.”

¶41

(4 of 4)

¶42

[CW-11017/2018]

¶43

In view of the above, nothing substantial survives for adjudication in the matters.

¶44

The respondents are directed to ensure timely execution of the undertakings aforesaid read with directions made in the case of Kailash Chand Meena (supra) , as extracted hereinabove. Failure to do so, would compel this Court to consider imposition of exemplary costs, which shall be recovered from erring Officers/Officials.

¶45

In view of the above, interim order dated 14^th May, 2018, stands vacated and writ proceedings stand closed.

¶46

A copy of this order be placed in each of the file.”

¶47

As Prayed for and agreed by the representative appearing on behalf of the State-respondents; instant writ application is disposed off in terms of order dated 24^th May, 2018, as extracted hereinabove.

¶48

Application (I.A. No. 3/2018), stands closed.

¶49

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶50

M.Meena/80

Karunesh Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karunesh Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyendra Singh Awana Vs State Rural Develp and Panchayati Ors.

Suresh Chand Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sangeeta Lohiya Vs R P S C Ajmer and Ors.

Shyam Lal Tiwari Andors Vs State Education Dep Ors.

Nand Kishore Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Mithilesh Kumari Gupta Vs University of Raj