[2026:RJ-JP:6544] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17413/2023 Sandeep Singh S/o Ramratan Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Tajpur Adda, Post Gadhiya Jagannath, Tehsil Aliganj, Dis- trict Eta (Up) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Panchayat Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. Chief District Education Officer (H.q.), Elementary Educa- tion, Dausa. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Chhaya Rani Sharma Mr. Sandeep Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC for R- 2, 3 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 11/02/2026 1. This writ petition has been filed with following prayer: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordhships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and: (i). by an appropriate writ, order or direction the re- spondents may kindly be directed to grant notional benefit to the petitioner from the appointment given to other candidates in the same selection process of the year 2018 with all consequential benefit. (ii). Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. “ [2026:RJ-JP:6544] (2 of 3) [CW-17413/2023] 2. Learned counsel for both the parties are in agreement that the issue involved in the instant writ petition is squarely cov- ered by the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in Sapna Kumari Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. CWP No. 9624/2023 as well as in the judgment of Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. CWP No. 7283/2014 decided on 16.07.2014 at Jaipur Bench of this Court where following direc- tions were given: 2.“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 be- come entitled merely because they had approached court earlier. Petitioners had a fresh cause of action for approaching in such situation and their writ peti- tion 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 De- partment, where appointments were delayed because of the fault of the State authorities, the candidates were accorded appointment from the date the candi- dates stood lower in merit were appointed and they have been granted all consequential benefits of ser- vices. 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 re- spondents 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 repre- [2026:RJ-JP:6544] (3 of 3) [CW-17413/2023] sentation to respondent no.2 – Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, alongwith a copy of this order, who shall, after verifying the facts stated above, con- sider 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 ex- tending them the relief as prayed for, as the candi- dates, 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 petition- ers above in seniority than the candidates who stood 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 consensus arrived at between learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the directions that observations in the aforesaid case shall also be applicable in the case of the petitioner. 4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/49