[2026:RJ-JD:8228]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24260/2025 Usha D/o Leelu Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Vpo Dhani Moji, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj) Presently Posted As Teacher Grade Iii (Level-2) (Hindi) At Government Girls Upper Primary School Kgbv Ranibarod, Block Kishangang, District Baran, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Directorate Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, District Baran, Rajasthan.

5. The District Education Officer (Headquarters), Elementary Education District Baran, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Puna Ram Sen For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samarjeet Singh Bhati for Mr.

Kamlesh Sharma, AGC HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

13/02/2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment in Minaxi & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.4499/2022, decided on 07.05.2022.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the fact that the issue is squarely covered by judgment, ibid.

3. In the case of Minaxi (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court, held as under:-

“This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking notional benefits pursuant to the appointment of the petitioners by order dated 26.05.2019 (Annex.5).

It is inter-alia indicated that pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.09.2017 (Annex.1), the petitioners applied for the post of Teacher Grade III (Leave II). Though the names of the petitioners appeared in merit, they were not accorded appointment.

Similarly situated candidates filed petitions being Komal Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13707/2018 and connected matters, which came to be decided by order dated 12.10.2018, wherein, the petitioners were held as eligible.

Pursuant thereto, the petitioners were accorded appointment by the respondents by order dated 26.05.2019, however, they have not been accorded the notional benefits, despite the fact that they were higher in merit to the candidates, who were accorded appointment prior to them, pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.09.2017.

Submissions have been made that the petitioners were denied appointments by the respondents for the reasons, which came to be quashed by this Court in the case of Komal Purohit (supra). Whereafter, they have been accorded appointment and for no fault of the petitioners, only on account of delayed appointment by the respondents, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the notional benefits.

Reliance has been placed on Manoj Khandelwal &

Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7283/2014. Learned counsel for the respondents contested the submissions made and submitted that as the petitioners have been accorded appointment by order dated 26.05.2019, they are not entitled for the notional benefits. However, it is not disputed that the similar issues have been decided in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra).

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioners, though higher in merit, were denied appointment for the reasons which came to be quashed in the case of Komal Purohit (supra), whereafter, they were accorded appointment.

Once the petitioners have been accorded appointment on account of quashing of the action of the respondents in denying the appointment, the respondents cannot refuse at least the notional benefits to the petitioners on account of the said delayed appointment.

In the case of Manoj Khandelw