Disposed

Mithilesh Naruka v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Jan 2019CW/255/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition by petitioners seeking notional seniority, permanent status, and regular pay scale for Prabodhak posts. Relying on prior Suman Jhanwar judgment where similar relief was granted after representation, this court issued identical directions to the respondent authority.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to file representation; respondents to pass speaking orders after hearing or allow further legal remedy if adverse order is passed.

Mithilesh Naruka Vs State of Rajasthan — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 255/2019

¶3

Mithilesh Naruka W/o Shri Ramveer Singh Ji Naruka, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of Mataji Nala Near Hing Factory, Railway Station, Rajgarh, Alwar.

¶4

Indu Bala Soni W/o Ram Ratan Ji Soni, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Pokarna Ki Pole Ke Andar, Jetaran District Pali.

¶5

Lala Ram S/o Shri Kheta Ram Choudhary, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Kanor, Tehsil Gida, District Barmer.

¶6

Bhanwar Lal Binda S/o Anna Ram Binda, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Gundisar, Degana, District Nagaur.

¶7

Smt. Chuki Mathur D/o Sh. Chunni Lal, Aged About 38 Years, Presently Working As Prabodhak At Government Primary School, Indro Ki Dhani, Kanod, Dist. Barmer.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director4, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

¶11

The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Barmer.

¶12

The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Pali. ----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki For Respondent(s) :

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶15

Order

¶16

09/01/2019

¶17

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:-

¶18

“i) by an appropriate order or directions, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant notional seniority and permanent statute of service to the

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CW-255/2019]

¶21

petitioners on the post of Prabodhak w.e.f. 1.10.2010 counting initial appointment of the petitioners w.e.f. 1.10.2008 on which date, the similarly situated and lesser meritorious persons were given appointment.

¶22

ii) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents be directed to give regular pay scale w.e.f. 1.10.2010 and arrears of salary with interest from the date the same became due till the date of payment.

¶23

iii) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, in the alternate and without prejudice to the above, the writ petition of the petitioners may kindly be disposed of in terms of the judgment/order dated 12.5.2014 (Annex.1) passed in S.B.C.W. Petition No.5405/2012 Suman Jhanwar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and other similar writ petitions.

¶24

iv) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶25

v) Cost of the writ petition may be awarded to the petitioner.”

¶26

It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the case of the petitioners is similar to that of petitioners in Suman Jhanwar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCW No.5405/2012 , decided on 12.02.2015, whereby this Court directed the petitioners to file appropriate representation before the appointing authority and on filing of such representation, the petitioners therein have been granted the requisite relief by the respondents and, therefore, the present petitioners may also be granted similar relief as granted in the case of Suman Jhanwar (supra).

¶27

In the case of Suman Jhanwar (supra), this Court after hearing the parties, passed the following order:-

¶28

“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

¶29

(3 of 3)

¶30

[CW-255/2019]

¶31

situated persons. It is expected of the respondent authority to pass speaking orders after providing the opportunity of hearing tot he 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.”

¶32

In view of the submissions as noticed hereinbefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with the similar directions as given in the case of Suman Jhanwar (supra).

¶33

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶34

64-AK Chouhan/-

Mithilesh Naruka v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithilesh Naruka 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

Shyama Vyas Vs State of Rajasthan

Shabbir Mohammad Mansuri Vs State of Rajasthan

Pramila Jeengar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mangi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Babulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunita Meena Vs State of Rajasthan