Petitioner sought seniority and consequential benefits equal to candidates placed below him due to state delay. Court directed petitioner to make a representation to Respondent no.2 for relief.
Petitioner to make a representation to Respondent no.2 to decide the matter of equalising benefits through a speaking order within three 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 Petition No. 16879/2019
Jetha Ram S/o Mohan Ram, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Excise Office, Railway Station, Jalore.
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anjali Gopa For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Order
13/11/2019
This writ petition has been filed by petitioner seeking relief as indicated in the writ petition.
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
(2 of 3)
[CW-16879/2019]
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).
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:-
“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, along with 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
(3 of 3) [CW-16879/2019]
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.”
(SABINA),J
132-Arvind/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment from the date candidates lower in merit were appointed, with all consequential benefits, given the delay was due to state fault.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Relied on¶14
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.Relied on¶14
Krishan Lal & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 19179/2017
Suman Bai and Another Vs. State and OthersExplained¶19
Suman Bai and Another Vs. State and Others – 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381
Jetha Ram S/o Mohan Ram
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan
The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner
The District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Jalore
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
