Dismissed

Gaurav Bhatt v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Aug 2024CW/1075/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by candidates appointed as Teacher Grade-III in 2021-22 seeking notional benefits from 2018 similar to beneficiaries of Urmila Devi's case. Court dismissed the writ with liberty to file representation for redressal, directing authorities to decide within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed with liberty to file representation; respondents directed to decide within 6 weeks.

Gaurav Bhatt Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:32827]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1075/2023

¶4

Gaurav Bhatt S/o Umakant Bhatt, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Chetan Chowk, Village-Post Anjana, Tehsil Garhi, Banswara (Raj.).

¶5

Ashwin Pandya S/o Pran Shankar Pandya, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Ward No. 9, Bharman Fala Chitri, Mukam/post Chitri, Cheentri, Dungarpur (Raj.)

¶6

Yashpal Singh Chouhan S/o Chandrapal Singh Chouhan, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Peeth, Near Bus Stand, Dungarpur (Raj.).

¶7

Dharmesh Adhikari S/o Gangadas Adhikari, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Mandir Chowk, Sareri Bari, Badi Saredi, Banswara (Raj.)

¶8

Avinash Jain S/o Laxmi Lal Jain, Aged About 41 Years, R/o In C/o Sandeep Tea Depo, Ward No. 11, Bagidora, Banswara (Raj.).

¶9

Reena Vyas D/o Harish Chandra Vyas, Aged About 32 Years, R/o In C/o Chirag Bhatt, Dadooka, Banswara (Raj.).

¶10

Chelna Jain D/o Raj Kumar Shah, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Gali No. 8B, Bahubali Colony, Banswara (Rural), Banswara (Raj.).

¶11

Bhavesh Patidar S/o Devilal Patidar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ghata Ka Gaon, Dungarpur (Raj.).

¶12

Deepesh Bhoi S/o Mohanlal Bhoi, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Upla Bhoiwada, Banswara (Rural), Banswara (Raj.).

¶13

Mordhvaj Trivedi S/o Purushottam Trivedi, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 6, Nawal Shyam, Dungarpur (Raj.).

¶14

Bharat Kumar Rawal S/o Devendra Nath Rawal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward No. 8, Gamdi Ahada, Dungarpur (Raj.).

¶15

Nanalal Kumawat S/o Ganpatlal Kumawat, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Sadar Bazar, Village Jajli, Arnod, Pratapgarh (Raj.).

¶16

Sonal Jain Mahatma D/o Praveen Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o House No. 71, Setho Ki Gali, Boharwadi, Salumbar, Udaipur (Raj.).

¶17

Prakash Chandra Patel S/o Modji Patel, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Dhakarda, Sagatada, Udaipur (Raj.).

¶18

Monika Shah D/o Kanhaiya Lal Shah, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Nogma, Navagaon, Banswara (Raj.).

¶19

Suresh Chandra Patidar S/o Kishor Patidar, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Goswami Fala, Diwara Chhota, Village Post Diwara Chhota, Khargada, Dungarpur (Raj.).

----Petitioners

Versus

(2 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:32827]

[CW-1075/2023]

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

¶26

The Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶27

The Director (Elementary Education), Directorate Bikaner, District Bikaner (Raj.).

¶28

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara, Rajasthan.

¶29

District Education Officer (Elementary), Banswara, Rajasthan.

¶30

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

¶31

District Education Officer (Elementary), Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

¶32

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pratapnagar, Rajasthan.

¶33

District Education Officer (Elementary), Pratapnagar, Rajasthan.

¶34

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Udaipur, Rajasthan. 11. District Education Officer (Elementary), Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶35

----Respondents

¶36

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Aditya Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	B.L. Bhati, AAG assisted by
	Mr.	Deepak Chandak

¶37

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶38

Order

¶39

07/08/2024

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been field with a prayer that the petitioners may be given the same notional benefits for the post of Teacher GradeIII (Level II) as was given to similarly situated persons whose appointment orders were issued in February 2018. The petitioners

[2024:RJ-JD:32827]

[CW-1075/2023]

(3 of 5)

further seek a direction that the benefits extended in the case of Urmila Devi & ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17360/2018 decided on 07.01.2019, may also be granted to the petitioners.

¶46

Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that the petitioners having the requisite qualification for the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II), applied for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.09.2017. However, due to pendency of some litigation, the respondents did not issue the appointment order at that time. The waiting list was ultimately operated in the year 2021-22 by giving appointment to the petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the advertisement was issued in the year 2017 in pursuance of which the petitioners were selected and placed in the waiting list and ultimately the appointments were granted by the respondents in the year 2021-22, therefore, the appointments may be treated from the date of notification issued by the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that subsequent to the advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 2017, one more advertisement was issued by the respondents in the year 2018, however, the candidates who were selected in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.07.2018 were granted appointments, whereas, the present petitioners were given appointments only in the year 2021-22.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that three candidates from the waiting list of the selectees of 2017 preferred a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition

[2024:RJ-JD:32827]

[CW-1075/2023]

(4 of 5)

No.17360/2018 Urmila Devi & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan &

¶53

Ors decided on 07.01.2019. In pursuance of the directions given by this Court on 07.01.2019, the respondents extended the benefits by issuing the appointment order in their case in the year 2019 itself. However, the petitioners were granted appointments only in the year 2021-22. He, therefore, prays that the benefit which has been extended in the case of Urmila Devi (supra) may also be granted to the present petitioners by giving notional benefits with effect from the date when the appointment order was issued in the case of Urmila Devi (Supra).

¶54

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since, there was no controversy in the selection process undertaken by the respondents in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.07.2018, therefore, the appointments were issued immediately after culmination of the process of selection. In the present case, since a direction was issued in the case of Urmila Devi (supra) to issue the select list including the waiting list within a period of four weeks, the respondents complied with the same and since Urmila Devi and other two persons were falling in the merit position, they were granted the benefits of appointment order issued in their favour.

¶55

At this juncture, while the order was being dictated, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may be granted liberty to approach the respondents by way of filing a detailed representation for redressal of their grievances and sought to withdraw the present writ petition with the liberty aforesaid. He further prays that the respondents may be directed to decide the representation within a stipulated period of time.

[2024:RJ-JD:32827]

[CW-1075/2023]

(5 of 5)

Learned counsel for the respondents assured this Court that in the event of filing such representation(s), the competent authority of the respondent-Department will decide the same expeditiously.

¶60

Considering the submissions and taking into account the fact that certain necessary facts are not available on record, the interest of justice will be met if the petitioners are given liberty to approach the respondent-Department by way of filing a detailed representation

¶61

In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondentDepartment by way of filing a detailed representation(s) for redressal of their grievances and the respondents are directed to decide such representation(s) within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation(s), strictly in accordance with law.

¶62

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶63

34-/Arun P/-

Gaurav Bhatt v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Bhatt 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

Ridhi Sidhi Home Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Devi Singh Vs District Collector

Lal Bahadur Shastri B.Sc Nursing School Vs State of Rajasthan

Kanhaiyalal Vs Ganeshi Bai

Rajendra Prasad Jain Vs Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur