Disposed

Sunil Sharma v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC18 Jan 2023CW/2171/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking seniority benefits denied in earlier orders due to defective merit list. This court held that since authorities now decide similar cases favorably, petitioners are granted liberty to file representations with time-bound directions to the State Government.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file detailed representation; authorities directed to decide within five weeks with a reasoned order.

Sunil Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2170/2017

¶3

Dinesh Kumar Saini S/o Shri Krishan Swroop Saini, aged about 48 years, R/o J-5, Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through The Chief Secretary, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2169/2017

¶12

Brij Mohan Kumawat S/o Shri Kanhiya Lal, aged about 55 years, Asiwal Bhawan, Jamna Colony, Sikar Road, Jaipur Rajasthan

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan Through The Chief Secretary, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶16

Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶17

Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2171/2017

¶20

Sunil Sharma S/o Shri Shyam Sundar Sharma, aged 51 years, R/o 131, Brij Mandal Colony, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.) Presently R/o 232-D, Officers campus Ext. Vishnu Marg Sirsi Road, Jaipur.

¶21

----Petitioner

¶22

Versus

¶23

State Of Rajasthan Through The Chief Secretary, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶24

Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Govt. Of Rajasthan,

(2 of 6)

[CW-2170/2017]

Secretariat, Jaipur

Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶29

----Respondents

¶30

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Akhil Simlote, Adv. with Mr.Ashvini Raj Tanwar, Adv. & Mr.Dikshant Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.S. Zakawat Ali, Addl. Govt. Counsel.

¶31

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶32

Order

¶33

18/01/2023

¶34

These writ petitions since involve common issue and as such, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, same are decided by a common order.

¶35

The petitioners in all the cases had participated in the selection process for the post of Lower Divisional Clerk (LDC) in pursuance of Competitive Examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) in 1986. The RPSC had prepared the District wise merit list, however, the persons who were lower in merit, were appointed in the different Districts and the State Government, later on, issued the notification to consider the cases of those persons, who were not appointed in spite of having better merit. The petitioners initially approached this Court for assigning them proper seniority and to grant them consequential benefits on their appointment on the basis of merit list, which was not to be prepared District wise basis.

¶36

The writ petitions filed by the petitioner were not entertained by this Court and as such, the petitioners were

¶37

(3 of 6) [CW-2170/2017]

¶38

directed to avail the alternative remedy by filing appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (hereafter ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal, vide order dated 23.02.2016, has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners, by observing that since the claim of the writ petitioners, was already adjudicated on merits by this Court and as such, the appeals filed by them were not maintainable and the same were dismissed.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Akhil Simlote submitted that the issue of assigning of proper seniority to the petitioners and consequential benefits therein on account of not giving the posting to the petitioners in spite of having better merit, is no more res integra and as such, counsel refers to orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18208/2019 titled as Narendra Kumar Boolchandani & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. dated 18.12.2019 and order dated 10.12.2019 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17012/2019 titled as Rakesh Purohit & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors .

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the aforesaid two orders were passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on the basis of judgment passed by the Jaipur Bench in the case of Suman Bai & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in [(2009)1 WLC (Raj.) 381 .

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the judgment passed by the Single Bench was put to challenge by the Employer-State before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur by filing D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.362/2020 titled as The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner Vs. Narendra Kumar Boolchandani & Ors. and other connected Special

¶42

(4 of 6) [CW-2170/2017]

¶43

Appeals and the Division Bench vide common order dated 04.02.2022, disposed of the appeals, by permitting the petitioners therein to file representations before the State Government and as such, representations were to be decided by the State in accordance with law. The relevant portion of order passed by the

¶44

Division Bench is quoted as hereunder:-

¶45

“In view of the peculiar circumstances, these appeals are disposed of by permitting the Government to take into account the representations already made or to be filed by any of the petitioners within one month. In the process, the authorities will bear in mind the stand taken by the department in similar cases. Such representations would be decided in accordance with law unmindful of the observations and directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned orders. Eventually, if the grievances of the petitioners still survive after the Government decision, it is open for the petitioners to seek redressal thereafter in accordance with law

¶46

The appeals are disposed of accordingly.”

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the Division Bench on 04.02.2022, has duly been complied with and as such, counsel refers to an order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the District Education Officer (Headquarters), Secondary Education, Jodhpur, wherein benefit has been conferred in favour of the petitioners, who had filed the writ petition before the Single Bench and as such, counsel refers to one candidate namely Rakesh Purohit, whose name has been placed at Serial No.1 in the said order and such person has been given benefit of regularization on a notional basis with effect from 02.02.1990 i.e. the date when a person lower in merit i.e. Rakesh Purohit was appointed.

¶48

(5 of 6)

¶49

[CW-2170/2017]

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that now in wake of implementation of order passed by the Division Bench, cases of the petitioners are also required to be decided by the respondents in a similar manner and the benefits which flow from appointment of the petitioners qua the less meritorious person need to be conferred in their favour.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are prepared to submit their representation(s) before the Authorities concerned for availing the benefit, as has been given in other similarly situated cases and as such, this Court may give time bound direction to the respondents to decide the said representations.

¶52

Learned Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents-State Mr.S. Zakawat Ali submitted that the petitioners had earlier filed the writ petition and the same came to be dismissed and the appeal filed by the petitioners thereagainst, has also been dismissed and as such, claim of the petitioners cannot be reexamined.

¶53

Learned Addl. Govt. Counsel further submitted that the judgment which has been passed by the Division Bench is not a judgment in rem but a judgment in personam and as such, benefit can be given to only those candidates who had approached the Court earlier.

¶54

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶55

This Court finds that the Division Bench of this Court has already considered the issue with regard to granting benefit to the candidates, who were not assigned proper seniority and consequential benefits on account of having better merit and as

¶56

(6 of 6) [CW-2170/2017]

¶57

such, considering these aspects of the matter, the order passed by the Single Bench was not interfered by the Division Bench and the same was modified to the extent of permitting the petitioners therein to file representation before the Authorities.

¶58

This Court further finds that the Authorities on the basis of judgments passed by the Single Bench and the Division Bench has now decided to grant benefit to the similarly situated persons and as such, they have also issued order dated 21.12.2022, granting benefit to certain other similarly situated persons.

¶59

This Court, considering all the above facts, deems it proper to dispose of these writ petitions by giving liberty to the petitioners to file a detailed representation before the Competent Authority along with the documents on which they intend to rely in support of their claim.

¶60

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the representations will be filed by the petitioners within a period of three weeks. The Authorities concerned are directed to look into the grievance of the petitioners and treatment which has been given to the other similarly situated candidates may also be kept in mind by the Authorities while deciding the representations and accordingly, reasoned and speaking order will be passed by the Authorities within a period of five weeks after receipt of the representation.

¶61

Resultantly, the present writ petitions stand disposed of, in view of above terms.

¶62

A copy of this order be placed in each petition.

¶63

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶64

Himanshu Soni/62-64

Sunil Sharma v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Sharma v. State of Raj and Ors.

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

Vishnu Kumar Chainman Vs District Collector and Anr.

Executive Engineer (Railway - O and M) Vs Bhanwar Singh S/O Hanuman Singh

Ms. Ummey Kulsum Jatu D/O Amiruddin Jatu Vs National Medical Commission

Dinesh Kumar Saini Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Kanheya Lal Chandoliya Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sitaram Gurjar Son of Shri Jay Narayan Gurjar Vs the State of Rajasthan