Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Krishan Kumar vs The State Of Rajasthan on 17 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5798/2026
1. Krishan Kumar S/o Shri Shri Ram Kumar, Aged About 36
Years, Resident Of Vpo Dabri, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
2. Nitesh Sharma S/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 25 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 30, Dhaka Colony,
Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan., Presently
Posted As Teacher Grade Iii (L_1) At Govt. Senior
Secondary School, Rampura Urf Ramsara, Block Tibbi,
Distt. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
3. Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Hari Singh, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 06, Vpo Panniwala Mota, Distt.
Sirsa (Haryana), Presently Posted As Teacher Grade Iii
(L_1) At Govt. Primary School, 2 Cdr, Block Tibbi, Distt.
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
4. Satyaveer S/o Shri Pawan Kumar, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 30, Vpo Parlika, Tehsil Honar, Distt.
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan., Presently Posted As Teacher
Grade Iii (L_1) At Govt.upper Primary School, 2 Nwd,
Block Rawatsar, Distt. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
5. Ravi Prakash S/o Shri Krishan Kumar, Aged About 25
Years, Resident Of Village Bhanguli, Post Meghana, Tehsil
Nohar, Distt. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan., Presently Posted
As Teacher Grade Iii (L_1) At Govt. Senior Secondary
Meharwala, Block Rawatsar, Distt. Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan.
6. Santosh Kumar S/o Shri Ghan Shyam, Aged About 31
Years, Resident Of Village Bhanguli, Post Meghana, Tehsil
Nohar, Distt. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan., Presently Posted
As Teacher Grade Iii (L_1) At Govt. Senior Secondary
Khedasari, Block Rawatsar, Distt. Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan.
7. Navdeep Singh S/o Shri Mahavir Singh, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of Vpo Channi Bari, Tehsil Bhadra, Distt.
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan., Presently Posted As Teacher
Grade Iii (L_1) At Govt. Primary School 4 Rwm, Block
Rawatsar, Distt. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
8. Sandeep Kuamr S/o Shri Rameshwar Dass, Aged About
35 Years, Resident Of Vpo Bagla, Tehsil Adampur Mandi,
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:03:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:37:29 PM)
(2 of 5) [CW-5798/2026]
Distt. Hisar (Haryana), Presently Posted As Teacher Grade
Iii (L_1) At Govt. Primary School 1Rwm, Luharowala
Block Rawatsar, Distt. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
9. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Bhagirath, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of Vpo Parlika Tehsil Nohar, Distt. Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan., Presently Posted As Teacher Grade Iii (L_1) At
Govt. Primary School 4 Rwm, Block Rawatsar, Distt.
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
10. Vikas S/o Shri Ummed Singh, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident Of Vpo Galar, Tehsil Sidhmukh, Distt. Churu,
Rajasthan., Presently Posted As Teacher Grade Iii (L_1) At
Govt. Senior Secondary School Bherusari, Block Rawatsar,
Distt. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
11. Gurpreet Singh S/o Shri Sarjeet Singh, Aged About 27
Years, Resident Of Ward No. 13, Village Lilanwali, Tehsil
Sangria , Distt. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan., Presently
Posted As Teacher Grade Iii (L_1) At Govt. Primary School
Shahpini, Block Sangria, Distt. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
12. Luxmi D/o Shri Mahender Pal, Aged About 33 Years,
Resident Of Vpo Channi Bari, Tehsil Bhadra, Distt.
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan., Presently Posted As Teacher
Grade Iii (L_1) At Govt. Senior Secondary School Beer
Bhadra, Block Bhadra , Distt. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal
Secretary,department Of Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of
Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur,rajasthan .
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Directorate Bikaner,
District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, District Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan.
5. The District Education Officer, (H.q.), Elementary
Education, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:03:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:37:29 PM)
(3 of 5) [CW-5798/2026]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Puna Ram Sen
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
17/03/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue
involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by
judgment in Minaxi & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.4499/2022, decided on 07.05.2022 .
2. In the case of Minaxi (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this
Court, held as under:-
“This writ petition has been filed by the
petitioners seeking notional benefits pursuant to the
appointment of the petitioners by order dated
26.05.2019 (Annex.5).
It is inter-alia indicated that pursuant to the
advertisement dated 11.09.2017 (Annex.1), the
petitioners applied for the post of Teacher Grade III
(Leave II). Though the names of the petitioners
appeared in merit, they were not accorded
appointment.
Similarly situated candidates filed petitions
being Komal Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.:
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13707/2018 and connected
matters, which came to be decided by order dated
12.10.2018, wherein, the petitioners were held as
eligible.
Pursuant thereto, the petitioners were accorded
appointment by the respondents by order dated
26.05.2019, however, they have not been accorded
the notional benefits, despite the fact that they were
higher in merit to the candidates, who were accorded
appointment prior to them, pursuant to the
advertisement dated 11.09.2017.
Submissions have been made that the
petitioners were denied appointments by the
respondents for the reasons, which came to be
quashed by this Court in the case of Komal Purohit
(supra). Whereafter, they have been accorded
appointment and for no fault of the petitioners, only
on account of delayed appointment by the
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:03:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:37:29 PM)
(4 of 5) [CW-5798/2026]
respondents, the petitioners cannot be deprived of
the notional benefits.
Reliance has been placed on Manoj Khandelwal
& Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.7283/2014. Learned counsel for the
respondents contested the submissions made and
submitted that as the petitioners have been accorded
appointment by order dated 26.05.2019, they are not
entitled for the notional benefits. However, it is not
disputed that the similar issues have been decided in
the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra).
I have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
material available on record. It is not in dispute that
the petitioners, though higher in merit, were denied
appointment for the reasons which came to be
quashed in the case of Komal Purohit (supra),
whereafter, they were accorded appointment. Once
the petitioners have been accorded appointment on
account of quashing of the action of the respondents
in denying the appointment, the respondents cannot
refuse at least the notional benefits to the petitioners
on account of the said delayed appointment.
In the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra) after
referring to the orders in the case of Suman Bai &
Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009 (1) WLC
(Raj.) 381 and other orders, the Court required the
respondents to redress the grievances of the
petitioners therein.
In view of the above fact situation, the petition
filed by the petitioners is allowed. The respondents
are directed to accord notional benefits such as
seniority, continuity in service, pay fixation and grant
of annual grade increments to the petitioners from
the date persons lower in merit to the petitioners
were accorded appointment.
Needful may be done by the respondents within
a period of three months from the date of this order.”
4. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed in same terms
as judgment, ibid. The respondents are directed to accord notional
benefits such as seniority, continuity in service, pay fixation and
grant of annual grade increments to the petitioners from the date
persons lower in merit to the petitioners were accorded
appointment, if otherwise the petitioners are found eligible for the
same.
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:03:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:37:30 PM)
(5 of 5) [CW-5798/2026]
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,
the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner
would be entitled to the relief.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
118-A.Arora/-
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:03:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:37:30 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
