IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Mukesh Kumar Beniwal S/o Satyaveer Singh and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education and ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 924 of 2023
Decided On : 16-01-2023
Judgment - Writ Petition - The court directed the respondents to treat the petitioners senior to respondents who were in lower order of merit. The petitioners were granted relief to be treated in seniority and to receive all consequential benefits of service. The court also directed the petitioners to make a representation to the competent authority, and upon consideration, if covered by the judgment, the petitioners would receive notional benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners approached the court seeking direction to the respondents to treat their appointment from the date the candidates lower in merit were appointed and to grant them all consequential benefits of service.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondents to treat the petitioners senior to respondents who were in lower order of merit and to grant them all consequential benefits of service. The court also directed the petitioners to make a representation to the competent authority, and upon consideration, if covered by the judgment, the petitioners would receive notional benefits.
Issues: The issue raised in the present writ petition was whether the petitioners were entitled to be treated in seniority and to receive all consequential benefits of service, similar to candidates who stood lower in merit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that candidates in lower order of merit cannot become entitled merely because they had approached the court earlier. The petitioners had a fresh cause of action for approaching in such a situation and their writ petition was not barred either as res judicata or as being improperly constituted.
Final Decision: The writ petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of with directions for the respondents to treat the petitioners senior to respondents who were in lower order of merit and to grant them all consequential benefits of service. The petitioners were also directed to make a representation to the competent authority, and upon consideration, if covered by the judgment, the petitioners would receive notional benefits.
ORDER :
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits 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. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra) and Krishan Lal (supra) claims learned counsel.
2. In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with the similar directions as given in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra), which read as under:-
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.
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.”
3. For the purpose aforesaid, the petitioners shall file representation before the competent authority giving out the requisite details along with certified copy of the order instant within a period of four weeks from today. On receipt of the representation, the concerned respondent shall decide the same, in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation and accord notional benefits to the petitioners from the date persons similarly situated to them and lower in merit were given appointment.
4. Upon consideration of the representation so filed, if respondents find the case of the petitioners to be covered by the judgment(s) aforesaid, before giving actual benefits, an undertaking shall be procured from the petitioners to the effect that their rights/entitlements shall be subservient to the fate of the judgment(s) aforesaid and in case the same is reversed or modi
Candidates in lower order of merit cannot become entitled merely because they had approached the court earlier. Fresh cause of action for approaching in such a situation is not barred either as res j....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the petitioners to make a representation to the competent authority, and if covered by the relevant judgments, notional benefit....
The court emphasized the entitlement of the petitioners to be treated senior to respondents in lower order of merit and to be considered for the same benefits of service granted to candidates who sto....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of petitioners to appointment benefits and the court's direction to the respondents to consider their representation for extending ....
Candidates in lower order of merit cannot become entitled merely because they had approached the court earlier.
The main legal point established is that candidates in lower order of merit cannot become entitled merely because they had approached the court earlier, and petitioners had a fresh cause of action fo....
The petitioners were entitled to be considered for appointment from the date lower merit candidates were appointed, with all consequential benefits of service, subject to certain conditions.
Candidates are entitled to service benefits based on merit, and delays by authorities cannot deprive them of their rightful claims.
The court's decision was based on the principle that candidates in lower order of merit cannot become entitled merely because they had approached the court earlier, and that petitioners had a fresh c....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.