RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Jaya Choudhary - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3102 of 2022
Decided On : 16-03-2023
Writ - Appointment - Act Section List - The court discussed provisions related to appointment and seniority, emphasizing that candidates in lower merit cannot claim entitlement based solely on earlier court approaches, and directed the authority to consider representations for benefits based on merit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief similar to previous judgments, claiming entitlement to benefits and seniority due to delays in appointments caused by state authorities, despite being lower in merit than others who received benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to make a representation to the relevant authority, who must consider the case and decide within a specified timeframe, ensuring that any benefits granted are contingent on 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 by state authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that candidates in lower merit cannot claim benefits solely based on earlier court actions, and directed the authority to evaluate the petitioners' claims based on merit and previous judgments.
Result: The writ petition is disposed of with directions for the authority to consider the petitioners' representation.
JUDGMENT
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Lawyers are abstaining from work and are not appearing before the Court.
2. 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. She is also entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra) and Krishan Lal (supra) claims the petitioner.
3. 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.'
4. 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 her and lower in merit were given appointment.
5. 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
Candidates in lower merit cannot claim benefits based solely on prior court actions; entitlement must be evaluated based on merit and relevant judgments.
Candidates in lower merit positions may receive benefits if delays in appointments are attributable to state authorities, ensuring equitable treatment.
Candidates in lower order of merit cannot become entitled merely because they had approached the court earlier. Notional benefits may be accorded if the case is found covered by the judgment.
The petitioners were entitled to notional benefits if their case was covered by previous judgments, with an undertaking for restitution if the judgment was reversed or modified.
Candidates in lower order of merit cannot become entitled merely because they had approached the court earlier. Fresh cause of action for approaching the court in such a situation is not barred as re....
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 in lower order of merit cannot become entitled merely because they had approached court earlier. Fresh cause of action for approaching in such situation and their writ petition not barred ....
Candidates in lower order of merit cannot become entitled merely because they had approached the court earlier.
Candidates in lower merit cannot claim entitlement based solely on prior court actions; fresh representations are necessary for addressing grievances.
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.