Disposed

Kamlesh Kumar Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Sept 2020CW/8410/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition by relying on precedent Manoj Khandelwal. It directed the Director of Secondary Education to consider granting appointment benefits, seniority, and consequential benefits to petitioners as if they were appointed on the same date as candidates with lower merit.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No. 2 to verify facts and decide within three months whether to grant appointment seniority and consequential benefits as of the date candidates with lower merit were appointed.

Kamlesh Kumar Meena Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8410/2020

¶3

Kamlesh Kumar Meena S/o Jagnath Meena, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Dalelpura, Tehsil- Nainwa, District - Bundi.

¶4

Sita Ram Saini S/o Badri Prasad Saini, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village And Post Rampura (Khandela), District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶5

Vinod Kumar Swami S/o Satyanarayan Swami, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Nohara And Post Udaipurwati, Near Gss Kirori Nohara, District - Jhunjhunu.

¶6

Darshana Saini S/o Dileep Singh Saini, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No. 15, Mandrella Road, Tehsil - Bagad, District- Jhunjhunu.

¶7

Devi Singh Meena S/o Ghan Shyam Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village - Kalakhana, Post - Palanpur, TehsilHindaun City, District- Karauli.

¶8

Jyoti Suman D/o Ravindra Kumar Suman, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Vpo- Tyonda, Tehsil- Khetri, District - Jhunjhunu.

¶9

Deepender S/o Uttam Chand, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 23, Behind Bishnoi Mandir, Sangaria, District - Hanumangarh.

¶10

Jitender Swami S/o Shivbhagwan Swami, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Near Roopadas Temple, Ward No. - 3, VpoBagar, District - Jhunjhunu.

¶11

Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Banwari Lal Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, R/o A-27 Pratik Vihar Colony, Jaipur Road By-Pass Circle Dausa, District- Dausa.

¶12

Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward-4, Near Obc Bank, Vpo- Nagrana, Tehsil - Sangaria, District - Hanumangarh.

¶13

Mukesh Kumar Meghwal S/o Ramesh Chandra Meghwal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village And Post- Kherwara, Tehsil - Kherwara, District- Udaipur.

¶14

Deepak Rajpurohit S/o Satish Chandra Rajpurohit, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Word No. 18, Court Road, Suratgarh, District- Sriganganagar.

¶15

Sagar Mal Jangir S/o Jitendra Kumar Jangir, Aged About

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CW-8410/2020]

¶18

29 Years, R/o Khumaron Ka Mohalla, Bhainslana, District - Jaipur.

¶19

Anil Parmar S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Near Gayatri Mandir, Sirohi, District- Sirohi.

¶20

----Petitioners

¶21

Versus

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

----Respondents

¶26

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. KP Raj Singh For Respondent(s) :

¶27

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶28

Judgment

¶29

08/09/2020

¶30

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matter in Court.

¶31

This writ petition has been filed by petitioners seeking reliefs as indicated in the writ petition.

¶32

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,

¶33

(3 of 4)

¶34

[CW-8410/2020]

¶35

the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra) and Krishan Lal (supra). 4. In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with the similar directions as given in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra), which read as under:-

¶36

“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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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

¶40

(4 of 4) [CW-8410/2020]

¶41

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.”

¶42

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶43

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶44

244-Sanjay/-

Kamlesh Kumar Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Kumar Meena 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Usman Gani Chhipa Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mota Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Satveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Sudhir Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan