[2025:RJ-JP:46058] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17292/2025 1. Rambabu Meena S/o Mansingh Meena, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Simara, Post Toda, Tehsil Sapotra, District Karauli. (Raj.) 2. Girraj Prasad Meena S/o Kirodi Lal Meena, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Gram Mandaora,post Kudgav, Tehsil Sapotra, District Karauli. (Raj.) 3. Rameshwar Meena, S/o Badri Lal Meena, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Barad, Post Pancholi, Tehsil Mandrayal, Distrit Karauli. (Raj.) 4. Suresh Chand Meena S/o Ramji Lal Meena, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Gram/post Langra, Tehsil Mandrayal, Distrit Karauli. (Raj.) 5. Ramesh Chand Meena, S/o Roop Ram Meena, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Bhutha Mandawara, Post Kurgaon, Tehsil Saportra, District Karauli. (Raj.) 6. Bharat Lal Meena S/o Parimal Meena, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Village Meenapura (Baharda) Post Bhankari, Tehsil Mandrayal, Distrit Karauli. (Raj.) 7. Banwari Meena S/o Lakhi Ram Meena, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Gram Khadepura, Post Ranipura, Tehsil Mandrayal, Distrit Karauli. (Raj.) 8. Ramvaran Meena S/o Ramdayal Meena, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Majar Ke Piche, Jheel Ka Har, Shiv Colony Karauli. (Raj.) 9. Meetha Lal Meena S/o Lodhara Lal Meena, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Arora, Post Kased, Tehsil Mandrayal, Distrit Karauli. (Raj.) 10. Ramesh Chand Meena S/o Ramji Lal Meena, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Gram Gopipura, Post Inayati, Tehsil Tehsil Sapotra, Distrit Karauli. (Raj.) 11. Ramveer Meena S/o Swa Ram Meena, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Gram/post Ratiyapura, Tehsil Masalpur, Distrit Karauli. (Raj.) 12. Chetram Meena S/o Ramkesh Meena, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Gram Post Dabra Tehsil Sapotra, Distrit Karauli. (Raj.) [2025:RJ-JP:46058] (2 of 5) [CW-17292/2025] ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchatiraj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. (Raj.) 2. The Secretary Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.) 4. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.) 5. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Karauli, District Karauli (Raj.) 6. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Karauli, District Karauli (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Poshwal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 13/11/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits 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 and further followed in S.B. CWP No.19179/2017 titled as Krishan Lal & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.,the petitioners are entitled for the same relief as granted in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra) and Krishan Lal (supra). [2025:RJ-JP:46058] (3 of 5) [CW-17292/2025] 2. In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with the similar directions as given in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra), which read as under: “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. Petitioners 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 petitioners 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 (English) 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 petitioners 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 petitioners, but till date nothing has been done. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 the date of its making, addressing the grievance of the petitioners 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 petitioners above in seniority than the candidates who stood [2025:RJ-JP:46058] (4 of 5) [CW-17292/2025] lower in merit, then the petitioners would be entitled to all benefits of seniority but they would be entitled only to notional benefits.” 3. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, in light of Manoj Khandelwal (supra), the petitioners are given a liberty to submit an appropriate representation before the respondents authorities raising all the grounds and grievances within a period of four weeks from now raising all grounds. The respondents are directed to decide the representation with a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from date of receipt of representation and if entitled, accord notional benefits to the petitioners from the date persons similarly situated to them and lower in merit were given appointment. After passing the order, the respondents are under an obligation to communicate the order to the petitioner either by way of speed post or through E-mail, if petitioner has provided E- mail in his representation. 4. Upon consideration of the representation so filed, if respondents find the cases of the petitioners to be covered by the judgment aforesaid, before giving actual benefits, an undertaking shall be procured from the petitioners to the effect that their rights/entitlements shall be subservient to the fate of the judgment aforesaid and in case the same is reversed or modified in any manner, they shall also be liable for restitution of any benefits/emoluments so received. 5. 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, [2025:RJ-JP:46058] (5 of 5) [CW-17292/2025] the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioners would be entitled to the relief. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition with pending application, if any, stands disposed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /196