HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Dinesh Mehta, J
Deepak Kumar Bapna - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
CW / 4750 / 2025
Decided On : 24-02-2025
(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Principles of Merit and Seniority - The court addressed the issue of appointment and seniority of candidates in relation to their merit rankings, emphasizing that candidates in lower order of merit cannot claim entitlement merely for approaching the court earlier. (Paras 1, 2)
(B) Representation - The court directed the petitioners to file a representation to the Director of Secondary Education for consideration of their claims for seniority and service benefits, ensuring a decision is made within a specified timeframe. (Paras 2, 3)
(C) Notional Benefits - The court clarified that if the petitioners are placed above lower-ranked candidates, they would only be entitled to notional benefits. (Paras 2, 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought relief similar to previous cases where candidates lower in merit were granted appointments and benefits due to delays caused by state authorities.
Findings of Court:
The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioners to make a representation for their claims to be considered.
Issues: The main issues were the entitlement of petitioners to seniority and benefits compared to lower-ranked candidates and the procedural fairness in addressing their claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that candidates cannot claim benefits solely based on earlier court approaches and must follow due process for their claims.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions.
ORDER :
DINESH MEHTA, J.
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:-
“This Court in Suman Bai and Another Vs. State and Others – 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381, held that candidates in lower order of merit cannot become entitled merely because they had approached court earlier. Petitioners had a fresh cause of action for approaching in such situation and their writ petition not barred either as res judicata or as being him in properly constituted. This directed the respondents to treat petitioners senior to respondents, who were in lower order of merit.
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 judgments aforesaid, before giving actual benefits, an undertaking shall be procured from the concerned petitioner(s) to the effect that their rights/entitlements shall be subservient to the fate of the judgments aforesaid and in case the same is reversed
Candidates in lower merit cannot claim entitlement solely for earlier court approaches; due process must be followed for claims.
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. Notional benefits may be granted based on the judgment if found applicable.
Candidates in lower merit positions may receive benefits if delays in appointments are attributable to state authorities, provided they follow due process.
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....
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.
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....
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.