AJEET KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in a matter involving identical issue i.e. Satdev v. Sate of Rajasthan and Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.9899/2019), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 25.07.2020 passed following order :-

(2.) It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that pursuant to the LDC recruitment 2013 (Annex.1), the petitioner participated in the recruitment and was selected, however, appointment was not accorded on account of pendency of litigation before this Court,wherein, the petitioners who were contractual employees, had questioned termination of their services as contractual employees. After the litigation was over, by order dated 4.9.2017 (Annex.2),the petitioners were accorded appointment pursuant to the selections held in the year 2013.

(3.) It is inter alia indicated that petitioner was eligible in the year 2013, was duly selected pursuant to the selection process held by the respondents and was not accorded appointment only on account of pendency of litigation, which has apparently nothing to do with the eligibility of the petitioner and, therefore, according the appointment in the year 2017 and not providing the petitioner notional benefits, fixation etc. w.e.f. the date similarly situated persons were accorded appointment, are not justified. Reliance was placed on judgment in the case of Om Prakash and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21214/2017, decided on 21.11.2017.