[2025:RJ-JD:54085]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9928/2013

1. State of Director Rajasthan through General of police, Police

Head Quarters, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Inspector General of police, Bikaner Range Bikaner.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Churu.

----Petitioners

Versus

1. Sampat Singh Son of Shri Samudra Singh, aged about 45 years, Resident Kanakpura, Tehsil and District Churu. (Raj). Presently posted as constable in office of Superintendent of

Police, Churu.

2. The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, Bench

at Jodhpur.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Singh Bhati for

Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati, GC

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh for

Mr. D.S. Sodha

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

16/12/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 01.02.2013 (Annexure-3) passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench Jodhpur whereby the

appeal as filed by respondent No.1 stood allowed.

2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in question rests covered by a Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3873/2019; Amar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (decided on 20.12.2023).

3. In Amar Singh (supra), the Court while relying upon the earlier Division Bench judgment passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Spl. Appeal (Writ) No.763/2011; State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Banney Khan (decided on 02.08.2011) observed and held as under:

“9. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgments rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the cases of Shiv Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No. 934/2012, decided on 04.12.2014) and Madho Singh Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No.

843/2005, decided on07.03.2017), as hereunder:-

Shiv Prakash (Supra)

“Learned counsel for the petitioner states that issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Banney Khan (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.763/2011, decided on 2.8.2011 and order of Single Bench dated 7.2.2013 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9440/2009 (State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs.

Chandan Mal & Anr.), decided on 7.2.2013.

Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the same and agrees that the matter is squarely covered by the said judgment.

The Division Bench of this Court while dismissing D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.763/2011 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Banney Khan) vide its order and judgment dated 2.8.2011 upheld the order of the Single Bench, vide which, the order impugned therein dated 30.10.2003 resulting in withdrawal of the benefit already granted, was quashed. …….

It is stated that the judgment has been duly upheld and MT selection grade stands released to the similarly situated employer In view of the above, the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner in M.T. selection grade instead of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in the General Section.”

Madho Singh (Supra)

“Both the learned counsel for the parties are ad-ideam that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition stands concluded by the decision rendered by the a coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.934/2012 (Shiv Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 4.12.2014, which was decided in light of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ)No.763/2011 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Banney Khan, decided on 02.08.2011 which has since been upheld right upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. They, therefore, pray that the instant writ petition may also be decided in light of the directions given in the said writ petition.

In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in the light of decision rendered in Shiv Prakash’s case (supra), the op