Writ petition by Senior Teachers seeking seniority and notional benefits w.e.f. 2012 for a post advertised in 2011. Court disposed of petition by directing the respondent Director to verify facts and pass a speaking order on extending benefits similar to those granted to lower-merit candidates, subject to future seniority adjustments.
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 AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 17023/2018
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil for Mr. Kailash Jangid. For Respondent(s) :
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
01/11/2018
The writ petition has been filed by petitioners seeking following reliefs:
“A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, any order denying the Seniority, Service Benefits and Notional Benefits of the petitioners for the post of Senior Teacher in pursuance of the advertisement dated 01.06.2011 (Annex.1) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, any order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to give all notional benefits for the post of
(2 of 3)
[CW-17023/2018]
Senior Teacher (Grade-II) w.e.f. the year 2012 as similar situated candidates given the appointment in accordance with the Judgment Dated 08.02.2012 (Annex-6) and actual benefits for the Senior Teacher (Grade-II) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 01.06.2011 (Annex.-1) w.e.f. the date of actual joining orders with all consequential benefits.
C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, any order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefits like seniority, fixation and notional benefits in the pursuance of the Order dated 08.02.2012 (Annex.6) passed by the Hon’ble High Court w.e.f. the year 2012 as given to the similarly situated candidates participating in the same selection process and actual benefits from initially date of joining on the post of Senior Teacher (GradeII).
D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, any order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to follow the order dated 08.02.2012 passed by the Hon’ble High Court.
E. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, any order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the entire benefits including the prevailing interest to the petitioners as per the Hon’ble High Court orders.”
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 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).
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:-
(3 of 3)
[CW-17023/2018]
“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 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.
PKS-467
3 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners are entitled to seniority and benefits comparable to candidates appointed lower in merit due to administrative delay.
Whether the High Court's earlier direction on similar facts applies to the present petitioners.
Whether the respondents are directed to consider extending seniority and consequential service benefits based on earlier judgments.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Followed¶25
Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 7283/2014
Krishan Lal & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.Followed¶25
Krishan Lal & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 19179/2017
Suman Bai and Another Vs. State and OthersReferred¶29
Suman Bai and Another Vs. State and Others – 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381
Pradeep Kumar
Roshan Bai Meena
State Of Rajasthan
The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission
The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner
The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Zone
DINESH MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
