Allowed the writ petition seeking pay fixation and confirmation of service. The court directed the State to confirm petitioners under Rule 27-B of the Rajasthan Services Rules, 1958, aligning with previous judgments.
Respondents directed to undertake confirmation of petitioners under Rule 27-B 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 AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 7271/2018
----Petitioners
Versus
(2 of 3)
[CW-7271/2018]
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Jangid. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Choudhary for Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
14/12/2018
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking direction for benefit of pay fixation and confirmation of service of the petitioners with all consequential benefits. Further relief has been sought that the order dated 01.12.2017 (Annex.-8) directing that the benefit of service is to be extended to only those candidates, whose name find placed in revised result i.e. they would be entitled to grant of regular pay-scale, fixation and confirmation, be set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment in the case of Sandeep Kumar Bishnoi & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4031/2017, decided on 19.05.2017 and the said judgment has been upheld in State of
(3 of 3)
[CW-7271/2018]
Rajasthan & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar Bishnoi & Ors.: DBSAW No.690/2017 , decided on 05.09.2017.
Learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the said submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
In the case of Sandeep Kumar Bishnoi (supra), it was inter
alia directed by this Court as under:-
“In view of the above, the instant bunch of writ petitions, stands allowed following the judgment dated 02.5.2017, in the case of Choturam Regar Vs. State (supra).
The respondent State is directed to undertake the exercise of confirming the petitioner(s) as contemplated under Rule 27-B of the Rajasthan Services Rules, 1958. The needful be done within a period of three months from today.
No order as to costs.”
The Division Bench of this Court has upheld the judgment in the case of Sandeep Kumar Bishnoi (supra).
In view of the above fact situation, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The petitioners would be entitled to similar reliefs as granted in the case of Sandeep Kumar Bishnoi (supra).
The needful be done by the respondents within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the respondents.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
61-PKS/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the benefit of pay fixation and confirmation of service should be extended to petitioners who did not appear in the revised result.
Whether the order directing benefit only for revised result placement be set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sandeep Kumar Bishnoi & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Followed¶31
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4031/2017
State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar Bishnoi & Ors.Followed¶34
SBSAW No.690/2017
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kanti Lal Purohit And Others
State Of Rajasthan
Arun Bhansali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
