IMPORTANT POINT
A candidate wrongfully denied appointment is entitled to notional seniority from the date their junior was appointed, ensuring fairness in the recruitment process.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The case is listed on the second stay application, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

3. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 14.11.2007, whereby, the respondent authorities had denied the benefits of seniority, pension, etc. to the petitioner.

4. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that the respondents vide advertisement dated 23.01.1996 published vacancies of Sub Inspector of Police (A.P.) and Platoon Commander (Sub Inspector RAC) under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Rules, 1989. The petitioner applied for the same and appeared in the examination conducted for the purpose in the selection process. He secured 397th position in ‘General’ category and 67th position in ‘OBC’ category. Since the petitioner was not given appointment as per his merit position in OBC category, he preferred a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3170/1998. The writ petition was decided by this Court vide order dated 01.06.2005 with a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the persons, including the petitioner, belonging to OBC category, who stood in waiting list for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector under the advertisement dated 23.01.1996 and to give appointment to the selected candidates in accordance with law.

5. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner was given appointment in the respondents department vide order dated 17.03.2007 passed by Inspector General of Police (Headquarter) Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The petitioner joined the services in the respondents department in pursuance of the appointment order issued, however, he was not assigned seniority as per his merit position in the seniority list for the selections conducted in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents department. He, therefore, preferred a representation for grant of notional seniority and other benefits, but the same were denied. Hence, the present writ petition was filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for no fault of the petitioner, he was deprived of the appointment on the post of Platoon Commander as per his merit list and therefore, after the judgment of this Court, the respondents though had given the appointment to the petitioner on the post of Platoon Commander in the year 2007, but the notional benefits including seniority from the date on which his junior was appointed have not been granted to him.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even the matter was referred to the Department of Personnel and the Department of Personnel vide their letter dated 28.12.2021 has given concurrence for considering the services of the petitioner notionally w.e.f. the date on which his junior was appointed. He also submits that further, vide order communication dated 14.05.2021, the Joint Secretary, Home has also expressed the same view. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the benefit of notional seniority may be granted to the petitioner from the date on which his junior was appointed, in the selection process undertaken vide advertisement dated 23.01.1996. He further submits that the benefits which are permissible under the law should also be extended to the petitioner.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has been granted all the benefits for which he was entitled as per Rules. He further submits that since the petitioner has actually joined the duties in the year 2007, therefore, appropriate seniority after his joining has been granted to him.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that there was no direction of this Court in its judgment dated 01.06.2005 to grant notional seniority w.e.f. th