Suman Devi vs State Of Rajasthan And Others

Arun Bhansali, J

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition is similar to the issue raised in Chetna v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6459/2021 & other connected petitions, decided on 30.3.2022, wherein, the petitions filed by the petitioners therein were rejected.

In case of the Chetna (supra), it was inter alia held and directed by this Court as under:-

“I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record.

The petitioners were accorded appointments as per their merit and were allotted districts accordingly pursuant to the recruitment 2018.

The State, decided not to thereafter, proceed further with making appointments on the posts, which remained vacant on account of non-joining, resigning and on account of candidates found ineligible. However, on petitions being filed by the candidates, in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra) and Lokendra Singh (supra) and other connected petitions, orders were passed according appointments ‘category-wise’.

Pursuant thereto, appointments have been accorded by orders dated 29.12.2020 and 11.01.2021 for Level I and II respectively. The said process adopted by the respondents was questioned by filing petitions being Rakesh Godara Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No. 2039/2021 and Ram Nivas & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No. 604/2021 & other connected petitions, which petitions came to be decided by this Court by order dated 23.03.2022, wherein, the plea raised by the petitioners therein was rejected.

The plea sought to be raised by the present petitioners is identical to what was raised in the case of Rakesh Godara (supra) and Ram Nivas (supra) and in view of order dated 23.03.2022, no case is made out.

Learned counsel for the petitioners made an alternate submission that respondents be directed not to place the petitioners at the bottom seniority in terms of relevant Rule, in case, in future, the petitioners are transferred to their preferential districts, as they have been wronged by according appointments to less meritorious candidates to the districts, wherein, the petitioners were entitled.

The prayer made by the petitioners is apparently premature at this stage and, therefore, the same need not be decided. It would be open for the petitioners to take appropriate steps at the relevant time, in case occasion arises.

In view of the above discussion, insofar as, the plea raised in the present petitions is concerned, no case is made out, the same are, therefore, dismissed.”

In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed based on similar observations made in the case of Chetna (supra).