Dismissed

Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/O Madan Lal Sharma, v. the State of Rajasthan Trhough Principal Education Secretary

Rajasthan HC13 Jul 2018CW/13712/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the petitioners' writ appeals concerning discriminatory treatment regarding notional seniority benefits. The Court dismissed the writ petitions as premature, directing the petitioners to first approach the appointing authority with evidence and seek a speaking order before filing an appeal in this Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of with liberty and direction to file appropriate representation with relevant evidence before the appointing authority.

Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/O Madan Lal Sharma, Vs… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 13712/2018

¶3

Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/o Madan Lal Sharma, aged about 39 years, R/o Shiv Colony, Gudha Road, Ward No. 30, Bandikui, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶4

Khayali Ram Saini S/o Vidhyadhar Saini , Aged About 44 Years, R/o Aamwali Dhani, Mandir Wala Bas Badiyalkalan, Teshil Baswa, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶5

Vishram Singh Gurjar S/o Heera Lal Gurjar , Aged About 36 Years, R/o Kanwar Bas Chorwada, Post Moondghisya, Teshil Baswa, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶6

Vinod Singh Gurjar S/o Laxmi Narayan Gurjar , Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Bedhari Goojran, Post Ghuda Aasikpura, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶7

Jagdish Prasad Meena S/o Buddha Ram Meena , Aged About 45 Years, R/o Vpo Navadya Ki Dhani, Gudliya Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶8

Sita Ram Mali S/o Kajod Lal Mali , Aged About 42 Years, R/o Vpo Balaheda, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶9

Suresh Kumar Bairwa S/o Ram Kishan Bairwa , Aged About 37 Years, R/o Vpo Anantwara, Tehsil Baswa District Dousa, Rajasthan.

¶10

Lajya Ram Meena S/o Ram Karan Meena , Aged About 43 Years, R/o Vpo Digariya Kapur, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶11

Ummed Singh Gurjar S/o Bhondu Ram Gurjar , Aged About 44 Years, R/o Vpio Ralawata, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶12

----Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State of Rajasthan through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶15

The District Elementary Education Officer , Dausa.

¶16

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parisad, Dausa.

¶17

The Director, Elementary Education , Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CW-13712/2018]

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini For Respondent(s) :

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶23

Order

¶24

13/07/2018

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in a batch of writ applications lead case being SBCWP Number 1798/2012: Govind Das Vaishnav & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 26^th may, 2014, relying upon the earlier opinion in the case of Suman Jhanwar & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. along with connected six writ applications (SBCWP Noumer 5405/2012, decided on 12^th May, 2014), observing thus:

¶26

“After the legal battle, the petitioners were given appointment as 'Prabodhak' under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008. Though the petitioners were originally appointed as Prabodhak vide the order (Annex.2) dated 29.09.2008 by the order of the District Education Officer, however, they were not given joining on the said post, and after approaching this Court under the directions of this Court, in case of the present petitioners who were appointed vide the order (Annex.4) dated 24.02.2009, however, were not given the notional benefit of seniority etc. from the date of original appointment on 29.09.2008, hence, the present writ petition was filed.

¶27

Mr. N.R. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for other similarly situated persons vide Annex.5 dated 19.10.2011, the District Education Officer, Bhilwara, had given appointment to certain persons like Asha Joshi and Aruna Pareek etc. (16 in number) giving them the notional benefit of seniority from the date of 01.10.2008 as Prabodhak even though they were actually appointed under the order (Annex.5) dated 19.10.2011 in pursuance of the directions of this Court. Since the petitioners have been given different treatment and no such similar

¶28

(3 of 3)

¶29

[CW-13712/2018]

¶30

notional benefit with effect from retrospective date has been given to the petitioners, hence, the present writ petitions have been filed by them. The other petitioners before this Court also claim similar relief/s.

¶31

The petitioners have not first brought these facts to the notice of the respondents before approaching this Court, therefore, the present writ petitions filed by the petitioners are considered as premature.

¶32

Therefore, the present writ petitions are disposed of with liberty and direction to the petitioners to file appropriate representation with relevant evidence before the appointing authority, who has issued the orders of appointment to the petitioners claiming the same relief, as purportedly given to other similar situated persons. It is expected of the said respondent authority to pass speaking orders after providing the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or their authorized representative as to why similar benefit cannot be extended to them though others persons have been given such benefits. If, however, any adverse order is passed against the petitioners, the petitioners will be at liberty to avail the legal remedy available to them in accordance with law.

¶33

The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.”

¶34

It is further urged that the instant writ application be also disposed off in terms of the order in the case of Govind Das Vaishnav & Ors. (supra).

¶35

Ordered accordingly.

¶36

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶37

Pooja/292

Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/O Madan Lal Sharma, v. the State of Rajasthan Trhough Principal Education Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/O Madan Lal Sharma, v. the State of Rajasthan Trhough Principal Education Secretary

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

Shashi Kala Parashar Wife of Shri Umesh Pathak Vs State of Rajasthan through Its Dy. Secretary, Elementary Education and Panchayatiraj Department

Rekha Mahar Vs the State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Secondary Education

Kavita Katara and Anr. Vs State of Raj Rural Dev and Panchayati

Suman Bhati Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Om Prakash Sharma and Ors. Vs State Education Department Ors.

Prahlad Meena S/O Gaindi Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary,Government Secretariat