Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 12887
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Ravi Chirania, J
RAMNIVASH MEENA S/O SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEENA – Appellant
Versus
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15090/2025 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3978/2025 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4815/2025 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19680/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Raghu Nandan Sharma, Abhinav Shrivastav, Kritika Rajawat, Ayush Bishnoi, Manasvita Sharma
For the Respondents: S.S. Naruka, Jitendra K. Tanwar, Tanishq Aditya Parmar, Anshuman Singh
Candidates appointed from a delayed waiting list due to the administration's failure to adhere to statutory recruitment rules are entitled to notional seniority and pay fixation, provided they do not claim actual salary for the period prior to their appointment.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 - Recruitment of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) - Failure to prepare and operate waiting list result in delayed appointment - Petitioners entitled to notional benefits - The court observed that the failure of respondents to prepare a waiting list, as mandated by statute, caused a three-year delay in appointments.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were appointed as Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) in Science and Mathematics after a significant delay. They sought parity with candidates from the 'English' subject stream who had secured similar benefits of seniority and notional pay fixation after prevailing in litigation up to the Apex Court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the delay in appointment was solely attributable to the respondents' inaction in failing to prepare the mandatory waiting list. Relying on the principle of parity, the court held that the petitioners were entitled to notional seniority and pay fixation from the date similarly situated candidates in the same recruitment process were appointed, provided no actual salary was paid for the period prior to their actual appointment.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to seniority and notional pay fixation despite the respondent's reliance on a subsequent circular barring such benefits for waiting list candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: Where delays in appointment are caused by the administrative failure to operate a mandatory waiting list, the selected candidates cannot be penalized by denying them the seniority and notional benefits granted to their peers in the same selection process.
Result: Petitions allowed.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Order
17/04/2026
These bunch of writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who were appointed by the respondents on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) in subjects ‘Science’ and ‘Mathematics’.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that, by the present petitions, the petitioners have made a claim for grant of seniority, notional pay fixation and other consequential benefits as granted in the case of Rakshita Pareek and other similarly situated candidates, who approached this Court and were granted the aforesaid benefits which are claimed by the petitioners in the present petitions.
Learned counsel submits that the respondents did not prepare the waiting list in terms of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 and, therefore, despite non-joining of a huge number of candidates, they were not appointed on the aforementioned post. Learned counsel further submits that the candidates who applied for subject ‘English’ challenged this action before this Court which reached up to the Hon’ble Apex Court. After losing the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondent-State issued the waiting list and the petitioners were given appointment in the year 2021 similar to ‘English’ subject.
Learned counsel further submits that similar controversy in respect of ‘English’ subject came to be examined by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4779/2025 and other connected writ petitions vide judgment dated 10.03.2026 whereby the respondents were directed to grant the benefit of seniority, notional pay fixation and other consequential benefits from the date the other similarly situated candidates were appointed in the same selection process.
Learned counsel submits that all the objections that the respondents have raised in the case have no merits as all these objections have already been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Sharma (supra). For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel prays that the petitioners herein may also be granted similar benefits as ordered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Manoj Kumar Sharma (supra).
Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. S.S. Naruka, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State strongly opposed the prayer for grant of benefit of seniority, notional pay fixation and other consequential benefits on the ground that in terms of the circular issued by the respondents dated 03.02.2023, the persons who were appointed from the waiting list cannot claim the benefits of seniority, notional pay fixation, etc.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This Court perused the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Manoj Kumar Sharma (supra) where the Court has considered all the objections to the grant of aforementioned benefits raised by the State and after considering all those submissions, the Co-ordinate Bench has already passed the order in the case of Teachers who applied for the ‘English’ subject in the same selection process. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced hereunder:-
“14. From the above discussion and analysis, this Court observes that in the present case it is not in dispute that the Statutory Rules governing the recruitment process mandatorily required the preparation and operation of a waiting list. The failure of the respondents to comply with the said statutory mandate became the principal cause for the delay in the appointment of the petitioners. It is only after the intervention of this Court, the respondents proceeded to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioners. In the interregnum, a period of three years had elapsed and two more recruitments pursuant to subsequent advertisements had also taken place. Such delay is clearly attributable solely to the inaction and non-compliance on the part of the respondents and cannot, by any stretch of imagina
