Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Satpal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 October, 2021

Bench: Arun Bhansali

(1 of 4) [CW-13884/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13884/2021

1. Satpal Singh S/o Ranveer Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Post Anokhu, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar (Raj.).

2. Jitendra Singh S/o Bheru Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o House No. 577, Bapunagar Vistar, District Pali (Raj.).

3. Rekha Sharma D/o Chiranji Lal Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Hukampura, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

4. Jetendra Sharma S/o Ravindra Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Mahajano Ka Bass, Village Post Borunda Tehsik Pipar, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

5. Ram Avtar S/o Mohan Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Post Merta Road, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur (Raj.).

6. Sandeep Kumar Rawal S/o Kishan Lal Rawal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Rampura, Tehsil And District Sirohi (Raj.).

7. Mamta Sharma D/o Chhabil Chand Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, R/o House No. 78, Village Dhana, Post Chainpura Chotta, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.).

8. Arpana Choudhary D/o Vijendra Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 39 A Sundamapuri First, Jodla Power House, Vkia Jaipur, District Jaipur (Raj.).

9. Sharwan Singh S/o Balu Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Sanderao, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali (Raj.).

10. Skylab Singh Kala S/o Gurbachan Singh Kala, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ward No. 19, Dulmani, Near Shastri Ki Chakki, Tehsil Pilibangan, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

11. Minakshi Chhabra D/o Rajkumar Chhabra, Aged About 29 Years, R/o House No. 328 Street No. 5, Nai Abadi, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Secretary, Department Of Education Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pali, District Pali, Rajasthan.

5. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary Education, Pali, District Pali, Rajasthan.

                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. V.S. Bhawla.
For Respondent(s)        :




                                           (2 of 4)                   [CW-13884/2021]


             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                      Order

05/10/2021

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that for

the same recruitment, similarly situated petitioners had

approached this Court in Om Prakash & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan

& Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21214/2017, which writ petition

has been decided on 21.11.2017 granting relief to the petitioners

in light of judgment in the case of Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. v.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3247/2015,

decided on 1.4.2015 and relying upon the adjudication in the case

of Suman Bai & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2009 (1) WLC

(Raj.) 381 and, therefore, the present writ petition may also be

decided in light of judgment in the case of Om Prakash (supra).

In the case of Om Prakash (supra), after noticing orders in

the case of Hemlata Shrimali (supra) and Suman Bai (supra)

observed as under:-

"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 Apri., 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

(3 of 4) [CW-13884/2021]

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 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 negate 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

(4 of 4) [CW-13884/2021]

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. 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."

In view of the submissions made, the present writ petition

filed by the petitioners is also disposed of in light of order passed

in the case of Om Prakash (supra).