[2026:RJ-JP:22488] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9475/2026 1. Surya Kant Saini S/o Ram Nath Mali, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 227, Renwal Road, Chomu Po Chomu, District Jaipur Rajasthan 2. Ram Charan Meena S/o Kadu Ram Meena, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 11 Meena Mohallama, Pipalipada Th. Mahwa, Peeplipara, Po Norangwada, District Dausa Rajasthan 3. Rajshree Bhati D/o Bhagirath Bhati, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Signal Bass, Ward No. 17 Sujangarh, Po Sujangarh, District Churu Rajasthan 4. Nikhil Mahar S/o Hansraj Mahar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ward No. 19, Subhash Nagar Mistri Market Ke Piche, Rawatsar, Hanumangarh, Rawatsera, Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, School Education Department, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with Mr. Aamir Khan For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 27/05/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petiton No. 7283/2014, decided on 16.07.2014 and [2026:RJ-JP:22488] (2 of 2) [CW-9475/2026] the said judgment has been followed in Krishan Lal & Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19179/2017, decided on 30.10.2017. The petitioner is also entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra) and Krishan Lal (supra). 2. Having regard to the facts of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of requiring the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.2–Director, Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner, Rajasthan, along with 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 petitioner for extending the relief as prayed for, as the candidate, 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 he would be entitled only to notional benefits. 3. The respondents are at liberty to verify the contents of representation and it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 4. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /23