MANILAL versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 9 S.C.R. 218 · Decided: 10-09-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 9 S.C.R. 218 : 2024 INSC 675
Manilal 
v. 
The State of Rajasthan & Ors. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10440 of 2024)
10 September 2024
[B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the appointment of the appellant to the post of 
Teacher Grade-III for TSP Area.
Headnotes†
Service law – Appointment – Post of Teacher Grade III Level II 
in the Scheduled Area (TSP) – Eligibiity was graduation with 
minimum 45% marks and one year Bachelor of Education 
(B.Ed) – However, candidates who had taken admission in 
B.Ed course after issuance of notification dated 31.8.09 
of National Council for Teacher Education, had to secure 
minimum 50 % at graduation level or equivalent examination – 
Appellant applied for the post, he had 44.58% marks in his 
graduation and had taken admission in the B.Ed course on 
23.10.2009-after the cut-off date – Appellant, being from the 
reserved category, qualifying percentage for admission to the 
B.Ed Course was 40% marks in graduation (45% for general 
category) – Rejection of appellant’s candidature since he had 
secured less than 45% marks in his graduation – Appellant 
and similarly situated candidate filed writ petitions, which 
were dismissed – Appellant then filed an appeal – Meanwhile, 
notification by NCTE that minimum percentage of marks in 
graduation shall not be applicable to those incumbents who 
had already taken admission to B.Ed or equivalent course 
prior to 29.07.2011 – Interim order passed directing the 
respondents to accord appointment to the appellant and 
pursuant thereto, the appellant was appointed – However, 
the Division Bench relying on a matter, dismissed the appeal, 
and thereafter his appointment was cancelled, though the 
appeal filed by the similarly situated candidate had already 
been allowed:
* Author
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 
219
Manilal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.  
Held: It would be improper to discriminate inter se among a 
homogenous group of students admitted for the academic session 
2009-10 – It could not be that those students admitted in the first 
round of counselling would be eligible, even with less than 50% 
marks in graduation, while the others admitted in the subsequent 
rounds of counselling would not be – It was on this reasoning that 
an identically situated student who had taken B.Ed admission after 
the appellant, was given relief – One person or situation should 
be treated the same as another – Judgment of the High Court is 
set aside – Authorities directed to treat the appointment given to 
the appellant, pursuant to the interim order of the Division Bench, 
as a regular appointment and after reinstating the appellant,  
grant him consequential benefits – Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 
1994 – Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. [Paras 15, 16]
Case Law Cited
Neeraj Kumar Rai and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Others [2017] 6 
SCR 444 – referred to.
List of Acts
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994; Rajasthan Panchayati Raj 
Rules, 1996.
List of Keywords
Appointment; Post of Teacher Gade-III for TSP Area; Graduation with 
minimum 45% marks and One year Bachelor of Education (B.Ed); 
Reserved category; Discriminate inter se among homogenous 
group of students; Back wages; Fitment of pay.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10440 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2022 of the High Court 
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in DBSAW No. 997 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Nishant Bishnoi, Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Ms. Srishti Prabhakar, Advs. 
for the Appellant.
Divyank Panwar, Milind Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
220
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment 
of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan 
at Jodhpur dated 27.04.2022 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 997 
of 2019. By the said judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the 
appeal of the appellant and confirmed the order dated 27.11.2018 of 
the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. 
3.	
We have heard Mr. Nishant Bishnoi, learned counsel for the appellant 
and Mr. Milind Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-State 
and perused the records of the case. We have also considered the 
written submissions filed by the parties. 
4.	
The facts lie in a very narrow compass. The respondent-authorities 
unde

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.