Disposed

Jay Prakash Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Jan 2019CW/763/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners sought seniority and service benefits equating to candidates lower in merit. The High Court relied on prior precedents and instead directed the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, to consider the petitioners' plea via a speaking order within three months, granting only notional benefits if seniority were placed above lower-merit candidates.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; directed Respondent No. 2 to consider petition via speaking order within three months; only notional benefits if seniority granted.

Jay Prakash Bishnoi Vs State of Rajasthan — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 763/2019

¶3

Jay Prakash Bishnoi S/o Shri Ranu Ram, Aged About 31 Years, Vpo Dabri, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶4

Raju Choudhary S/o Shri Annaram, Aged About 35 Years, C-28, Rajiv Nagar, Mahamandir, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶9

The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶10

The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Zone, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanwar Singh For Respondent(s) :

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶14

Judgment / Order

¶15

18/01/2019

¶16

The writ petition has been filed by petitioner seeking

¶17

following reliefs:

¶18

“A. Respondents may kindly be directed to grant all Service Benefits like Notional Benefits, pay fixation and seniority to the petitioner for the post of Senior Teacher w.e.f. 14.9.2012 with all consequential benefits which has been granted to the similarly situated persons w.e.f. 14.9.2012 (Ann.-2) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 01.06.2011.

¶19

B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefits like seniority, fixation and notional benefits

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

[CW-763/2019]

¶22

w.e.f. 14.09.2012 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.

¶23

C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the entire benefits including the prevailing interest to the petitioner as per the Hon’ble High Court orders.

¶24

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

¶25

E. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.”

¶26

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 petitioner is also entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra) and Krishan Lal (supra).

¶27

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:-

¶28

“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.

¶29

(3 of 3)

¶30

[CW-763/2019]

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.”

¶34

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶35

50-Hanuman/-

Jay Prakash Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Prakash Bishnoi 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

Dhanpat Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishore Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Tej Singh Jagarwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Vs State of Rajasthan

Tanu Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

M/S Rambhajos Vs Airports Authority of India