Petitioners seeking seniority benefits equal to those granted to lower-ranking candidates were allowed a direction to the respondent authority to decide the matter via representation, applying principles from Manoj Khandelwal.
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 BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10102/2020
(2 of 4)
[CW-10102/2020]
(Udc) Government Senior Secondary School, Nevariya, Rajsamand, Distt. Chittorgarh, R/o Village Sirsarli, Tehsil Bamanwas, Distt. Sawai Madhopur
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7815/2020
Arvind Kumar Jain S/o Shri Gulab Chand Jain, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of 166, Indira Colony Extension, Malpura, Distt. Tonk, At Present Postedas Senior Assistant (Udc), Government Senior Secondary School, Chandsen, Malpura, Distt. Tonk.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. L.K. Malpura. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ammar Zaidi for Mr. S.Z. Ali.
(3 of 4)
[CW-10102/2020]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
23/09/2021
These writ petitions have been filed by petitioners seeking reliefs as indicated in the writ petitions.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue raised in the present writ petitions 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 petitioners are 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 petitions filed by the petitioners are 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.
(4 of 4)
[CW-10102/2020]
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, 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.”
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
119-120-PRADEEP KUMAR LIMBA /686
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners are entitled to be treated senior to candidates who stood lower in merit and granted consequential benefits of service.
Whether the principle laid down in Manoj Khandelwal applies to the facts of the present writ petitions
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Followed¶40
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.Followed¶40
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¶42
Suman Bai and Another Vs. State and Others – 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajkumar Chaturvedi and Others
State of Rajasthan and Others
Arvind Kumar Jain
State of Rajasthan and Others
Arun Bhansali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
