Disposed

Davendra Kumar S/O Mool Chand Jangir v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Sept 2021CW/5949/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for early hearing of a writ petition concerning delayed appointments for school lecturers. The court disposed of the main petition by directing the respondents to consider a representation regarding seniority and notional benefits relative to lower-ranked candidates.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with directions to respondent no.2 to verify facts and decide within three months on granting similar relief to candidates with lower merit under the Manoj Khandelwal principle.

Davendra Kumar S/O Mool Chand Jangir Vs the State… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5949/2019

¶4

Davendra Kumar S/o Mool Chand Jangir, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Village And P.o Bagren Tehsil Bayana, Bharatpur (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶9

Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Zone, Siksha Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhil Simlote. For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order

¶13

20/09/2021

¶14

An application has been filed by the petitioner seeking early hearing of the writ petition.

¶15

For the reasons indicated in the application, the same is allowed.

¶16

The matter is taken up for orders.

¶17

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 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).

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[CW-5949/2019]

¶20

In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by

¶21

the petitioner is disposed of with the similar directions as given in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra), which read as under:-

¶22

“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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.”

¶26

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶27

130-SACHIN KHUSHWAHA /685

Davendra Kumar S/O Mool Chand Jangir v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Davendra Kumar S/O Mool Chand Jangir v. the 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

Ajay Singh Dhayal S/O Sardar Singh Dhayal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vishram Gurjar Son of Shri Sundaram Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Dhanopia S/O Shri Hari Shankar Ji Dhanopia Vs the Principal Secretary

Anita Yadav Vs State of Raj Andors

Birbal Ram Meghwal S/O Keshraram Meghwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Laddu Lal Jangid S/O (Late) Shri Hajari Lal Jangid Vs the State of Rajasthan