Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kamlesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 October, 2021

Bench: Arun Bhansali

(1 of 6) [CW-14088/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14088/2021

1. Kamlesh Kumar S/o Shiv Chand, Aged About 32 Years, Ward No. 13, Bissau, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) Application

2. Anirudh Sharma S/o Ram Dayal Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, Brahman Mohalla Bagina, Sawaimadhopur, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) Application Number 3240376, Merit No. 676.

3. Ravi Prakash Saini S/o Devi Shankar, Aged About 32 Years, Alanpur, District Sawaimadhopur, (Raj.) Application Number 3237228, Merit No. 1020

4. Anil Kumar Nehra S/o Dileep Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Nehrakidhani Sunari, District Jhunjhunu, Application

5. Ranjeet Singh Jat S/o Baluram Jat, Aged About 29 Years, Dhani Sarana Ki Barnagar, District Jaipur, Application

6. Naveen Prakash Kushwah S/o Bhawarlal Kushwah, Aged About 34 Years, Ward No. 4, Uniara, District Tonk,

7. Komal Kumari D/o Satya Narayan, Aged About 36 Years, 14 Aryaveer Nagar, Jagatpura Road Malviya Nagar, District Jaipur, Application Number 3281088, Merit No.

8. Manisha D/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 31 Years, Puran Chooti, District Sikar, Application 3242552, Merit No. 911

9. Jitendra Kumar Dhanka S/o Sewa Ram Dhanka, Aged About 31 Years, Village Badagaon, Bilai Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar, Application Number 3238220, Merit No.

10. Maya D/o Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 30 Years, Village Pathredi Pragpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur, Application Number 3240980, Merit No. 1112

11. Rakha Yadav D/o Dinesh Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, 77, Ahiranram Singhpura, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, Application Number 3244782, Merit No. 232

12. Hansa Devi Jat D/o Baluram Jat, Aged About 30 Years, Rojon Ka Mohalla Sunadiya, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur

(2 of 6) [CW-14088/2021]

Application Number 3238560, Merti No. 3066

13. Neeraj Kumari Meena D/o Lajja Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Kansara, Kosra, District Karauli, Application Number 3242037, Merti No. 3301

14. Saddam Husain S/o Ismile Khan, Aged About 32 Years, Daulat Nagar Mahra, District Alwar, Application Number 3252833, Merit No. 1234

15. Shashi Sharma D/o Mahesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, Indergarh, Agarpura Jobner Phulera, H.q. Sambhar, District Jaipur, Application Number 3245378,

16. Rekha Meena D/o Rohitash Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, Krishna Colony Naya Bas, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, Application Number 3241119, Merit No. 1628

17. Sumitra D/o Sagarmal, Aged About 32 Years, Ward No. 14, Jeenwali Dhani, Durgapura, Piparli, District Sikar, Application Number 3243063, Merit No. 2040

18. Sunil Agarwal S/o Jagdish Agarwal, Aged About 35 Years, Ward No. 17 Braj Bihar Colony Kherli Rel (Rural), District Alwar, Application Number 3236564, Merit No. 597

19. Anju Verma D/o Syokaran Ram, Aged About 30 Years, Gothra Nooniya, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu,

20. Pawan Kumar S/o Gopi Ram Bankoliya, Aged About 31 Years, 254, Ward No. 9 Jharli, District Sikar, Application Number 3241845, Merit No. 1022

21. Pankaj Gurjar S/o Sohan Lal Gurjar, Aged About 32 Years, Aheero Ka Mohalla, District Tonk, Application Number 3238815, Merit No. 3107

22. Niranjan Singh S/o Rambir Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Gram Nasilpur, Barehmori, District Dholpur, Application

23. Jyoti Mahawar D/o Ramesh Chand, Aged About 32 Years, Makan No. 28, Rangvihar Colony, Mahaveer Nagar-3 Dadabadi, District Kota, Application Number 3247481,

24. Dhannjai Kumar Chaturvedi S/o Balram Chaturvedi, Aged About 30 Years, Gunesari District Karauli, Application

25. Asmeen Khan S/o Mangal Khan, Aged About 29 Years,

(3 of 6) [CW-14088/2021]

Pinan, District Alwar, Application Number 3239005, Merit

26. Manju Kumari Godara D/o Girdhari Lal, Aged About 32 Years, Ward No. 14 Dhewa Ki Dhani Girdharpura, Tehsil Shahlpura, District Jhunjhunu, Application Number

27. Subhash Kumar Thalor S/o Devakaran Singh, Aged About 34 Years, Bagari District Sikar, Application Number

28. Mahendra Kumar Regar S/o Okarlal Regar, Aged About 30 Years, Regro Ki Basti Salpura Marg Tehsil Atru, District Baran, Application Number 3241934, Merti No. 181

29. Kamlesh Rathore S/o Ramesh Chand, Aged About 32 Years, Motipura Kalan, Chechat, District Kota, Application

30. Binja Ram S/o Kheta Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Jethaniyo Ki Dhani, Sutharo Ki Dhani, Sohara, District Barmer, Application Number 3249219, Merit No. 1693

31. Vipul Tanwar S/o Ghanshyam Tanwar, Aged About 29 Years, Tiba Tibabasai Jhunjhunu District Jhunjhunu, Application Number 3245158, Merit No. 1190

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director (Non Gazzeted), Medical And Health Service, Rajasthan Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. The Principal And Controller, Dr. Sampurnanand Medical College And Joint Hospital Group Jodhpur.

5. The Principal And Controller, Sawai Man Singh Medical College And Hospital Jaipur.

6. The Superintendent, Jk Lon Hospital, Jaipur.

                                                                ----Respondents


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




                                           (4 of 6)                   [CW-14088/2021]


             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                      Order

06/10/2021

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

(5 of 6) [CW-14088/2021]

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

(6 of 6) [CW-14088/2021]

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).