Disposed

Reena Rani v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Dec 2018CW/19200/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking appointment and seniority benefits for the petitioner in the Secondary Education department. The court directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the Director of Secondary Education, Bikaner, considering earlier precedents that grant seniority to lower meritorious candidates appointed earlier.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make a representation to Respondent No. 2; Respondent to consider and decide by speaking order within three months.

Reena Rani Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 19200/2018

¶3

Reena Rani D/o Shri Mohan Lal Yadav, W/o Shri Deepak Yadav, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 7, Near Aggarwal Dharmshala, Pilibangan, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Thorugh The Secretary, Department Of Seconary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

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

¶8

The Deputy Director (Secondary) Education Department, Pali Zone, Pali.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria. For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶12

Order

¶13

19/12/2018

¶14

The writ petition has been filed by petitioner seeking

¶15

following reliefs:

¶16

“(i) The respondents may kindly be directed to consider and treat the appointment of the petitioner from the date when the less meritorious candidates have been granted appointment pursuant to the advertisement Annex P/1 on the post of Teacher Grade – II (Maths) with all consequential benefits from the date of their appointments.

¶17

(ii). The writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be decided in the terms of the judgment rendered in SBCWP No 17330/2018 decided on 03.11.2018.

¶18

(iii). Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CW-19200/2018]

¶21

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner is 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 petitioner 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 given, with all consequential benefits of service, such as seniority, continuity of service, pay fixation, grant of annual grade increments.

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CW-19200/2018]

¶28

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.”

¶29

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶30

118-PKS/-

Reena Rani v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reena Rani 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Vs the University Grants Commission

Rajendra Kumar Joshi Vs Rsrtc and Ors.

Natwar Lal Vs Distt.and Sessions Judge, Dungarpur and Anr.

Bhinya Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Kanhaiya Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ajay Dharu Vs State of Rajasthan