Partly allowed

Shailesh Ameta v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Jan 2023CW/441/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a writ petition allowing petitioners to claim notional benefits for appointment as teachers based on directions in Reena Kunwar Chundawat, directing authorities to treat them as appointed from the date lower merit candidates were appointed. The decision was passed without hearing respondents.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to accord notional benefits to petitioners pursuant to their appointment in relation to advertisement dated 12.4.2018 on post of Teacher Grade III Level I.

Shailesh Ameta Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 441/2023

¶3

Shailesh Ameta S/o Shri Chandra Shakhar Ameta, Aged About 33 Years, r/o 507, Brampuri Kurabad, Udaipur (Raj.).

¶4

Nidhi Sharma D/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, r/o 0 Brahampuri Kurabad, Udaipur (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Elementary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶8

The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶9

The Director, Department Of Elementary Education, Bikaner (Raj.).

¶10

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Udaipur (Raj.). 5. The Chief District Elementary Education Officer, Udaipur (Raj.).

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Mannan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Durga Ram for Ms. Bhawna Jangid

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶14

Order

¶15

16/01/2023

¶16

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by order in

¶17

Reena Kunwar Chundawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.:

¶18

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10893/2022 & other connected

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CW-441/2023]

¶21

matters, decided on 13.10.2022 , wherein similar nature writ petitions have been allowed by this Court.

¶22

In the case of Reena Kunwar Chundawat (supra), it was observed and directed by this Court as under:-

¶23

“I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶24

It is not in dispute that the petitioners had applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.4.2018 and on account of the circumstances, wherein on account of the area, wherein the petitioners were residents came into TSP area/they were denied benefit of application despite being residents after marriage within the TSP area, they approached this Court by filing writ petitions led by Manish Kumar Nagda (supra) and Smt. Twarita Gehlot(supra), which came to be accepted by this Court, wherein the petitioners were permitted to seek appointment in TSP area.

¶25

Once the grievance/plea raised by the petitioners was accepted by this Court and they were permitted to seek appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.4.2018 as per their merit, the denial of the notional benefits to the petitioners in relation to candidates, who were lower in merit to the petitioners only on account of the fact that they were accorded appointment pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, cannot be countenanced.

¶26

Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed.

¶27

The respondents are directed to accord notional benefits to the petitioners pursuant to their appointment in relation to the advertisement dated 12.4.2018 on the post of Teacher Grade III Level I from the date persons lower in merit to the petitioners were accorded appointment. Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of eight weeks.”

¶28

In view of the submissions made, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of in light of and with similar directions asgiven in the case of Reena Kunwar Chundawat (supra).

¶29

4.This order has been passed based on the averments made in the petition and without hearing the respondents. The respondents shall therefore, be free to examine the veracity of the submissions

¶30

(3 of 3) [CW-441/2023]

¶31

made in the petition. In case, the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioners would be entitled to the relief, as given in case of Reena Kanwar (supra).

¶32

5.The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶33

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶34

140-payal/-

Shailesh Ameta v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailesh Ameta 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

Jyoti Kunver Rathod Vs State of Rajasthan

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Gurjeet Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ajay Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dalip Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt. Sumitra Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan