[2026:RJ-JP:16141] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15090/2025 1. Sonu Bano W/o Jainul Abedeen Khan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Jatanpura, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. 2. Ram Niwas Bajiya S/o Banwari Lal Bajiya, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ballupura, Losal, District Sikar, At Present Posting Gsss, Pindolia, Block Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur. 3. Shiv Shankar Saini S/o Buddhi Prakash Saini, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Behind Balika Avm School, Near Mobile Tower, Ward No.26, Bandikui, District Dausa, At Present Posting Gups, Vela, Navania, Block Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur. 4. Anjum Ara D/o Amzad Ali, Aged About 31 Years, Near Red Temple, Pinjara Mohalla, Jhalrapatan, Jhalawar, At Present Gups, Manya Mangari, Bhimal, Block Mavali, District Udaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director Primary Education, Directorate Bikaner, Rajasthan. 3. District Education Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer. 4. District Education Officer, Zila Parishad Udaipur. 5. District Education Officer, Zila Parishad Balotara. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3978/2025 1. Ramnivash Meena S/o Shri Ramswaroop Meena, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Bhagwatpura, P0St Sehra, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan. 2. Vishram Meena S/o Shri Hajari Lal Meena, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Rajwas, Post Dolika, Tehsil Sikarai, District Dausa, Rajasthan. 3. Anil Kumar Meena S/o Shri Mahadev Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Chak, Post Chak, Tehsil [2026:RJ-JP:16141] (2 of 11) [CW-15090/2025] Dantaramgarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan. 4. Kamlesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Mohan Lal Meena, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Dodi, Post Dokun, Tehsil Nainwana, District Bundi, Rajasthan. 5. Bhagirath S/o Shri Devi Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward No-07, Meghwalo Ka Mohalla, Lalpura, 25 Rwd, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. 6. Shreyansi Kamal C/o Bajrang Lal Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Nandri, Kishangarh Renwal, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 7. Khushi Raj Meena S/o Ratti Ram Meena, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Gangurda, Post Semarda, Tehsil Karauli, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director Primary Education, Directorate Bikaner, Rajasthan. 3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Barmer. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4815/2025 1. Vijender Somra S/o Shri Dharampal Singh Somra, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Vidhya Vihar, Chirawa Road, Pilani, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. 2. Neetu Meena D/o Shri Mangej Singh Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No-13, Pachlangi District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. 3. Koushal Sharma D/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Badakhet,muhana, Sanganer, Muhana, Rajasthan. 4. Vipin Kumar S/o Shri Madan Lal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No 12, Chak 4 C Badi, Orki, Distt. Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan. 5. Omprakash Garg S/o Shri Gorkha Ram Garg, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Garg Mohalla, Shiv Barmer, Rajasthan. 6. Surender Kumar S/o Shri Indraj, Aged About 41 Years, [2026:RJ-JP:16141] (3 of 11) [CW-15090/2025] R/o, Ward,2, Lalania, Hanumargh, Rajasthan. 7. Aashish Nagpal S/o Shri Amritpal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 46 C Block ,near Nehru Park,ward No 14, Karanpur, Ganganagar, Rajasthan. 8. Arvind S/o Shri Ramswroop, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Chak 70 Gb, Anoopgarh, District Ganganagar, Rajasthan. 9. Nand Kishor S/o Shri Sanwat Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Majara Dhakora, Teh Bansur, Rajasthan. 10. Jagdeep Singh S/o Shri Resham Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vpo Malarampura, Dhani 3 I Dg, Sangaria, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. 11. Sunil Kumar Jangid S/o Shri Natwar Lal Jangid, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Old Post Office, Kumaro Ka Maholla, Sikar Road, Kuchaman City, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. 12. Meenu Gupta D/o Shri Hari Om Gupta, Aged About 46 Years, R/o House No 36-Vinod Basti, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan. 13. Sita Ram S/o Shri Roop Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Jata Bas, Rawatsar, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. 14. Archana Singh D/o Shri Raj Kishore Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o D-174-A Jamunapuri, Murlipura Scheme District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 15. Bhupendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad Meena, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Dadwada, Post Nonera, The- Piplda, District Kota, Rajasthan. 16. Meeta Choudhary D/o Sultan Singh Budania, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 5-N-18, Jawahar Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan. 17. Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Mahipal Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward No 21, Village Mahradas, Haripura, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. 18. Usha Rathore W/o Praveen Rathore, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 1 E 33, Mahaveer Nagar 3, Kota, Tehisl Ladpura, District Kota. 19. Akhram Kumar S/o Shri Mahboob Ali, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ward No 23, Behind Old Police Station, Nohar Hanumangargh, Rajasthan. [2026:RJ-JP:16141] (4 of 11) [CW-15090/2025] 20. Kavita Ahuja D/o Shri Bihari Lal Ahuja, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Aadarsh Colony, Ward No.9, New Suratgarh, District Ganganagar, Rajasthan. 21. Nemnath Sidh S/o Shri Mohan Nath Sidh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Vpo. Thukariyasar, Dungargarh, Bikaner, Rajasthan. 22. Shalini Shekhawat W/o Shri Satyendra Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 26 Bhomiya Nagar Soni Colony 100Ft. Road, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur. 23. Sarita Kumari Bajiya D/o Narayan Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Dhani Lekhramji Wali Baori, Sikar, Rajasthan. 24. Kapil Kumar S/o Shri Devi Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Rajputo Ka Bass, Deidas, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. 25. Gaurav Pathak S/o Shri Somdutt Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 2/33, Housing Board Colony, Dhaulpur, Rajasthan. 26. Swati Gurjar D/o Ram Awtar Gurjar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Plot No- 2/340-341, Housing Board, District Tonk, Rajasthan. 27. Rakesh Kumar Tailor S/o Shri Vinod Kumar Tailor, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 65, Ward No 5, Koraya Ki Dhani, Ghatwa, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. 28. Jarnail Singh S/o Shri Daleep Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward No 10, Near Govt, School, Village Post Guria, Tehsil Tibbi, Via Sangaria, 1 Mks-A, Sangaria District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. 29. Dinesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Shambhu Dayal Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 90, Near Mandir, Kanpura, Maharkala, Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 30. Rajendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Boduram Yadav, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Bichwaliyo Ki Dhani, Manpura, Mancheri, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 31. Naina Sharma W/o Shri Shailash Kumar Bhardwaj, D/o Shri Suresh Chand Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, C-85, Indra Verma Colony, Shastri Nagar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 32. Dharmendra Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Pema Ram Choudhary, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Moondwara, Jobner, Phulera, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. [2026:RJ-JP:16141] (5 of 11) [CW-15090/2025] 33. Sanjay Kumar Kumawat S/o Shri Mahesh Kumar Kumawat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Bagwano Ka Mohalla, Govindgarh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 34. Rama Ram S/o Shri Jora Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Chaura, District Jalore, Rajasthan. 35. Pankaj Mishra S/o Shri Virendra Mishra, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 1/3, New Housing Board Colony, District Banswara, Rajasthan. 36. Santosh D/o Shri Sooraj Bhan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Vpo Bhirani, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. 37. Komal Gumber D/o Vijay Kumar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward No-13, Teacher Basti, Sadulsheher, District Ganganagar, Rajasthan. 38. Anusuiya D/o Bhupender Kumar Verma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Sector No-02, Near Makkar Eye Hospital, Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. 39. Anjli D/o Shri Sumer Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Chiruni, Peepli, District Alwar, Rajasthan. 40. Ram Narayan Kumawat S/o Shri Muralidhar Kumawat, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Aam Wali Dhani, Nangal, Koju, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 41. Sangita Choudhary D/o Shri Ruda Ram Sondilya, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Near Balaji Kalai, Sondilya Ki Dhani, Badhal, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 42. Sumit Kumar Bagoria S/o Shri Kishan Lal Bagoria, Aged About 42 Years, R/o C-174, Near Pratap Park, Agrasen Nagar, District Churu, Rajathan. 43. Rachana Chahar D/o Shri Daya Ram Chahar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Parasrampura, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. 44. Ajay Kumar Meena S/o Shri Rameshwar Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Meeno Ka Mohalla, Antela, Tehsil Viratnagar, District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan. 45. Deepak Sharma S/o Shri Komal Prasad, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ward No-02, Lodhipura, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. 46. Rakhi Joshi W/o Shri Ram Swarup, Aged About 37 Years, [2026:RJ-JP:16141] (6 of 11) [CW-15090/2025] Ward No-09, Guraniyo Ka Bas, Pokaran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. 47. Princy Vyas D/o Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, Aged About 36 Years, R/o District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. 48. Archana Sharma D/o Shri Madan Gopal Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Anwa, Tehsil Duni, District Tonk, Rajasthan. 49. Banwari Lal Bochalya S/o Shri Banshi Dhar Bochalya, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Lamiya Road, Badhal, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 50. Babita Dara D/o Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Kishorpura, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. 51. Manoj Kumari D/o Gopal Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Haripura, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. 52. Deependra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Murlidhar Sharma, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Santka Bhawan, Manoharpur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 53. Tek Chand Saini S/o Shri Ramswaroop Saini, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Behind Bus Stand, Nagar, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. 54. Bajrang Choudhary S/o Shri Ram Lal Choudhary, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Kansya, Post Mendwas, Phagi, District Dudu, Rajasthan. 55. Bijendra Birda S/o Shri Durga Ram Birda, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Kasumbi, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. 56. Hansraj Pareek S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Pareek, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Rampura, Khandela, District Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director Primary Education, Directorate Bikaner, Rajasthan. 3. District Education Officer, Zila Parishad Barmer. 4. District Education Officer, Zila Parishad Udaipur. 5. District Education Officer, Zila Parishad Balotara. [2026:RJ-JP:16141] (7 of 11) [CW-15090/2025] ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19680/2025 1. Shree Bhagwan S/o Shri Bali Ram Dhobi, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Tehsil Kotkasim, Pur, District Alwar, Rajasthan. 2. Yad Ram Meena S/o Shri Goverdhan Lal Meena, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Chordi, District Dausa, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director Primary Education, Directorate Bikaner, Rajasthan. 3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Barmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma with Mr. Abhinav Shrivastav, Ms. Kritika Rajawat, Mr. Ayush Bishnoi and Mr. Manasvita Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG assisted by Mr. Jitendra K. Tanwar, Mr. Tanishq Aditya Parmar and Mr. Anshuman Singh 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 [2026:RJ-JP:16141] (8 of 11) [CW-15090/2025] 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 [2026:RJ-JP:16141] (9 of 11) [CW-15090/2025] 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 [2026:RJ-JP:16141] (10 of 11) [CW-15090/2025] 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 imagination, be fastened upon the petitioners. The petitioners, having been duly selected and subsequently appointed from the waiting list pursuant to the same advertisement and recruitment process, cannot be made to suffer adverse consequences for the lapse committed by the authorities themselves. Merely because the petitioners were placed in the waiting list and their appointments came to be issued belatedly owing to respondents’ own default, they cannot be treated differently from the candidates appointed from the main list. The principle of parity and equal treatment, therefore, requires that the petitioners should also be extended the same notional benefits of seniority and pay fixation so as to place them at par with other candidates appointed pursuant to the same recruitment process. 15. Consequently, the petitioners are entitled to be accorded notional benefits of seniority and pay fixation from the date on which other similarly situated candidates, appointed pursuant to same recruitment process, were granted appointment. However, it is made clear that since the petitioners did not actually work prior to issuance of their appointment order, they shall not be entitled for actual payment of salary or other monetary benefits.” Once the teacher who applied in the subject ‘English’ in the same selection process were granted appointment after issuance of the waiting list, it is clear that the case of the present [2026:RJ-JP:16141] (11 of 11) [CW-15090/2025] petitioners is clearly covered by the judgment passed by the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of Manoj Kumar Sharma (supra). In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed, and the petitioners are held entitled for the benefits as granted by the respondents to the teachers of subject ‘English’ in terms of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Supra (supra). There shall be no order as to costs. All pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J Dushyant/228-231