Karunesh Kumar Sharma @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

Mr. Sandeep Saxena, counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners would be satisfied, if order made in identical matters writ applications i.e.

SBCWP No. 10496/2018 (Panaj Upadhyay and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.), after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondents on

24th December, 2018, is made in the case of the petitioners as well.

In the case of Pankaj Upadhyay (Supra), this Court upon hearing the parties on 24th May, 2018, made the following order:

“Mr. Kishan Lal Devatpal, Dy. Director, present in person. The State-respondents have very fairly admitted the errors in non-rectification of the

seniority lists and DPC conducted on 3rd May, 2018. The respondents have agreed to allow the petitioners in the ongoing counselling and to conduct a

review DPC at the earliest for redressal of the grievances of the petitioners.

Consequent upon, review DPC, posting will be accorded to the petitioners, according to their position, in the counselling.

The respondents have also agreed to allow the petitioners in the ongoing conselling process.

The respondents have assured this court to complete the process of review DPC within six weeks and file compliance report in the one of the matter,

(SBCWP. No.11302/2018: Kailash Chand Meena and another Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.), which has already been posted to 31st July, 2018, on

the very same issue.

In the case of Kailash Chand Meena (supra), this Court on 23rd May, 2018, made the following order:

“Mr. Rakesh Kumar Pareek, Additional Education Officer, has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent â€" department, who was

furnished with a copy of the writ application on 22nd May, 2018.

He further submits that taking note of the contents of the writ application, corrective measures have been initiated so much so an order dated 22nd

May, 2018, has been issued by the competent authority. Thus, grievances of the petitioners have been redressed.

Referring to an order dated 1st December, 2016, made in SBCWP No.16601 of 2016: Kamal Kishore Kuldeep v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,

adjudicating upon, along with identical matters, in somewhat identical factual matrix situation; he urged that directions were issued while disposing off

those matters to hold the Review DPC within a period of six weeks and accord benefit of seniority in the event of the petitioners being recommended

by the Review DPC. The promotions so made were to relate back to the date when those petitioners were eligible or their juniors were promoted,

irrespective of date of joining for the petitioners could not participate in the counseling for the fault of the respondents.

Having heard the petitioners, present in person and representative of the respondent â€" department and in view of the order dated 22nd May, 2018,

the respondents are directed to :

A. Hold the Review DPC within a period of six weeks so as to redress grievances of the petitioners.

B. In the event of recommendations made in favour of the petitioners by the Review DPC; seniority of the petitioners shall be kept intact and the

seniority to promoted post shall also be reckoned from the date when they were eligible and/or their juniors were promoted, irrespective of date of

joining; and

C. the respondent-department would ensure posting of the petitioners at the desired station(s), subject to availability of the post(s), for they have been

precluded in the counseling for the fault of the respondents.

Needless to observe that the respondents would ensure compliance of this order not only in the case at hand but also wherein they received

representation(s), from the employees aggrieved in this regard.

A copy of this order be furnished to the respondent-department  for  onward transmission and necessary compliance, without fail.

Matter be listed again in the Court on 31st July, 2018, as prayed.â€​

In view of the above, nothing substantial survives for adjudication in the matters.

The respondents are directed to ensure timely execution of the undertakings aforesaid read with directions made in the case of Kailash Chand Meena

(supra), as extracted hereinabove. Failure to do so, would compel this Court to consider imposition of exemplary costs, which shall be recovered from

erring Officers/Officials.

In view of the above, interim order dated 14th May, 2018, stands vacated and writ proceedings stand closed.

A copy of this order be placed in each of the file.â€​

As Prayed for and agreed by the representative appearing on behalf of the State-respondents; instant writ application is disposed off in terms of order

dated 24th May, 2018, as extracted hereinabove.

Application (I.A. No. 3/2018), stands closed.