Rajnish Kumar Atrya vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2139 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2139 Raj
Judgement Date : 27 January, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rajnish Kumar Atrya vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 January, 2021

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9/2021

1. Rajnish Kumar Atrya S/o Shri Gurudutt Sharma, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Gram Post Malarampura, Tehsil Sangariya, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

2. Kishor Sharma S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma,, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 6-B-29, Pawanpuri, South Extension Scheme, Bikaner, District Bikaner (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner (Agriculture), Agriculture Commissionerate, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Assistant Director, Horticulture, Churu, District Churu (Raj.).

4. The Assistant Director, Horticulture, Bikaner, District Bikaner (Raj.).

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. J.S. Bhaleria
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. M.C. Bishnoi



                       JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                   Judgment

27/01/2021


1.   Mr.    J.S.   Bhaleria,      learned       counsel       for    the    petitioners

submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is

squarely covered by the judgment dated 21.11.2017, rendered in

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21214/2017 : Om Prakash Vs. State of

Rajasthan.

2. Mr. M.C. Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents submitted that the case of Om Prakash (supra) was

(2 of 5) [CW-9/2021]

pertaining to recruitment of Teacher Grade-III for the year 2012,

wherein the present case involves the recruitment on the post of

LDC in the year 2011.

3. Mr. Bhaleria, learned counsel for the petitioners submittted

that may be the post and recruitment year is different, but the

principles as laid down in Om Prakash's case are applicable in the

present case also and in a similar case being S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.5982/2019 (Shatendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Raj.

& Ors.), this Court has passed an order dated 01.05.2019 and in

compliance of the order aforesaid, the respondents have given due

benefits to the employees concerned.

4. Relevant portion of the order in case of Om Prakash(supra)

reads thus :

"Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset,

submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application

stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate

Bench of this Court in a batch of writ applications lead case being

S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 3247/2015: Hemlata Shrimali & Ors.

Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 1st April, 2015, relying

upon the adjudication in the case of Suman Bai & Anr. Versus State

of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381, observing thus:

"5. Upon consideration of the arguments aforesaid and the judgment of the Division Bench in Hari Ram and the subsequent order dated 21.7.2001 whereby clarification application of the State Government was dismissed, I find that the entitlement of the petitioner for appointment on the basis of originally prepared merit list cannot be denied. If admittedly the candidates, who are lower in merit, have been granted appointment, those who are above them in the merit cannot be denied such right of appointment. Seniority as per the rules in the case of

(3 of 5) [CW-9/2021]

direct recruitment on the post in question is required to be assigned on the basis of placement of candidates in the select list and when the selection is common and the merit list on the basis of which appointments were made is also common, right to secure appointment to both the set of employees thus flows from their selection which in turn is based on merit. Regard being had to all these facts, merely because one batch of employee approached this Court later and another earlier, and both of them having been appointed, the candidates who appeared 6 lower in merit cannot certainly be placed at a higher place in seniority. It was on this legal analogy that Division Bench of this Court in Niyaz Mohd.Khan (supra) held that the petitioner therein entitled to be placed in seniority in order of merit of common selection amongst persons appointed in pursuance of the same selection with effect from the date person lower in order of merit than the petitioner was appointed with consequential benefits.

6. I am not inclined to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents No.4 to 8 that the judgment of the learned Single Judge should be so read so as to infer therefrom that though the petitioners would be entitled to claim appointment but not seniority above the candidates who are already appointed even though they admittedly are above them in the merit list. Infact, the judgment of the learned Single Judge merely reiterated the direction of the Division Bench in Hari Ram (supra) in favour of the petitioners. But construction of that judgment in the manner in which the respondents want this Court to do, would negat the mandate of the Rules 20 and 21 of the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971, which requires seniority to be assigned as per the inter-se merit of 7 the candidates in the merit list based on common selection. Even otherwise, no such intention of the Court is discernible from reading of that judgment.

Mere appointment of the petitioner was a sufficient compliance of the judgment and not total compliance was the view taken by this Court also when contempt petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

                                                     (4 of 5)                    [CW-9/2021]

              Question        with   regard    to     correct    and     wrong

assignment of seniority having arisen subsequent to appointment of the petitioners would obviously give rise to a afresh cause of action. The writ petition filed by the petitioners, therefore, cannot be thrown either barred by resjudicata or otherwise improperly constituted.

7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioners senior to respondents No.4 to 8 as per their placement in the merit list."

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that instant writ application be also disposed off in terms of the order dated 24th May, 2017, as extracted herein above.

Ordered accordingly."

5. In view of the aforesaid, following the judgment in case of

Om Prakash (supra), the writ petition is disposed of in same

terms.

6. For the purpose aforesaid, the petitioners shall file

representation before the competent authority giving out the

requisite details along with certified copy of the order instant

within a period of four weeks from today. On receipt of the

representation, the concerned respondent shall decide the same,

in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the

date of receipt of the representation and accord notional benefits

to the petitioners from the date persons similarly situated to them