[2025:RJ-JP:40475] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14544/2025 Ruchi Mathuria D/o Rupendra Singh Mathuria, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 22, Shri Ram Nagar B, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Education Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Director, Secondary Education Department, Bikaner, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 06/10/2025 1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner seeking relief as indicated in the writ petition. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner 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, and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra) and Krishan Lal (supra). 3. In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with the similar directions as given in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra), which read as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:40475] (2 of 3) [CW-14544/2025] “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. Petitioner 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 petitioner 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 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 petitioner 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 petitioner, but till date nothing has been done. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 [2025:RJ-JP:40475] (3 of 3) [CW-14544/2025] the date of its making, addressing the grievance of the petitioner 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 petitioner above in seniority than the candidates who stood lower in merit, then the petitioner would be entitled to all benefits of seniority but they would be entitled only to notional benefits.” 4. The order has been passed based on the submissions made in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case, the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner would be entitled to the relief. 5. Instant writ petition and pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /54