RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Vikas Verma - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11875/2021
Decided On : 02-09-2021
Writ - Appointment - Act Section List - The court discussed provisions related to merit-based appointments and the rights of candidates, emphasizing that candidates in lower merit cannot claim entitlement solely based on earlier court approaches, influencing the decision to direct consideration of the petitioners' claims.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief similar to previous cases where candidates lower in merit were granted benefits due to delays caused by state authorities. The petitioners claimed entitlement to seniority and service benefits from the date lower merit candidates were appointed.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioners to make a representation to the relevant authority, who must consider their claims and decide within a specified timeframe, ensuring that any benefits granted would be subject to the outcome of prior judgments.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to the same benefits as candidates lower in merit due to delays in their appointments caused by state authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that candidates in lower merit cannot claim benefits solely based on earlier court actions, and emphasized the need for a fresh representation to address their grievances.
Result: The writ petition is disposed of with directions for the petitioners to make a representation for their claims to be considered.
JUDGMENT
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner is 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner from the date persons similarly situated to him and lower in merit were given appointment.
4. Upon consideration of the representation so filed, if respondents find the case of the petitioner to be covered by the judgment(s) aforesaid, before giving actual benefits, an undertaking shall be procured from the petitioner 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 modified in any manner, he sh
Candidates in lower order of merit cannot become entitled merely because they had approached the court earlier.
The principle of res judicata and the entitlement of notional benefits based on previous judgments.
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....
Candidates in lower order of merit cannot become entitled merely because they had approached the court earlier.
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 ....
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 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....
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.