Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 13190
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Anand Sharma, J
Prathvi Singh Meena – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4767/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.L. Deora
For the Respondents: N.K. Mehta
Candidates selected and appointed in the same recruitment process cannot be discriminated against in pay fixation or annual grade increments based on different joining dates; such action is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Pay Fixation - Annual Grade Increment - Discrimination in granting increments based on different joining dates for candidates selected in the same recruitment process is arbitrary and contrary to established principles of service jurisprudence. (Para 10, 13)
(B) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Equality - Adopting two different joining dates for the purpose of granting increments to employees appointed under the same advertisement is unsustainable and violates the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Para 11)
(C) Service Benefits - Notional Benefits - Candidates selected in the same process must be treated as a single unit for the grant of annual grade increments, regardless of whether they joined prior to or subsequent to a specific administrative cut-off date. (Para 14)
Issues: Whether candidates selected in the same recruitment process can be discriminated in the matter of pay fixation and annual grade increments based on their respective dates of joining.
Order
1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, orders of respondents dated 29.08.2023 (Annex-7) and 30.10.2017 (Annex- 8) to the extend restricting/denying the Pay fixation, Seniority, Service Benefits and Notional Benefits of the petitioners as granted to lower for the post of School meritorious Lecturer (History) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.10.2015 (Annex-1) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, rejection orders (Annex-9) of denying the Pay fixation, Seniority, Service Benefits and Notional Benefits of the petitioners as granted to lower meritorious for the post of School Lecturer (History) in pursuance of the advertisement 16.10.2015 dated (Annex-1) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to give all benefits of Higher pay seniority, annual grade,, increment, and other service benefits including the selection scale and all notional benefits for the post of School Lecturer (History) as similarly situated candidates and lower meritorious candidates have been given all benefits in pursuance of the advertisement year, 2015 with all consequential benefits.
D. By an appropriate writ order ог direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefits like pay fixation, seniority and notional benefits as granted and given to the similarly situated candidates and lower meritorious candidates appointed and joined in the similar manner in the same selection process and actual benefits from similar date of joining on the post of School Lecturer.
E. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the entire benefits including the prevailing interest to the petitioners as per the Hon'ble High Court orders.
F. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.
G. Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent RPSC issued an advertisement dated 16.10.2015 for School Lecturer posts in various subjects. Petitioners applied online pursuant thereto and appeared in the selection process. RPSC issued a subject-wise merit list of provisionally selected candidates and published marks for all appeared candidates. Petitioners secured higher marks in their respective categories and were selected. Certain candidates then filed an SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court, which passed directions to RPSC. Thereafter, appointment orders of different candidates were issued on different dates, but without following the order of merit in select list. Accordingly, different candidates relating to the same select list joined on different dates. Initially, all of them were paid fixed pay during the probation period, but after completion of probation, respondents granted regular pay scale to them from different dates. Consequently, first of July being date of increment, those who joined prior to 30.06.2017, their pay was fixed after granting them benefit of annual grade increment and such benefit was not granted to others only on account of joining after 30.06.2017. Consequently, pay of the petitioners, despite being higher in select list was fixed at lower stage, only on account of joining after 30.06.2017, whereas candidates who were lower in merit list, but joined prior to 30.06.2017, their pay was fixed at higher stage of pay. This anomaly was apparently discriminatory. That apart, it is also a matter of fact that the petitioners were earlier serving in different state service posts; competent authorities relieved them on various dates per rulings, and petitioners joined their new duties the very next day. Much after their appointment and joining, respondents issu
