Mahendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 15543 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14172/2021

1. Mahendra Singh S/o Pyara Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 72 Malviya Nagar Police Line Ke Piche Bundi, District Bundi, 3224462, Merit No. 1079.

2. Vishnu Priya D/o Bhanwar Lal Adaniya, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 160, Moti Colony, Ramgarh, Dataramgarh, District Sikar, Application Number 3243444, Merit No. 1583.

3. Nirmala Katara D/o Amrit Lal Katara, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Mukam Bhaisara Chota, Chitri, Dungarpur, District Dungarpur, Application Number 3112828 Merit No. 11.

4. Nandkishore Sharma S/o Suresh Chand Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 98 Noh Brahmano Ka Mohalla Bharatpur District Bharatpur, 3232183, Merit No. 841.

5. Sajjana D/o Kana Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Sewa, District Sikar, Application Number 3227768, Merit No. 1306.

6. Chanchal Joshi D/o Govind Lal Joshi, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Gangrar, District Chittorgarh, Application Number 3242707, Merit No. 920.

7. Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Kailash Chand Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Goraji Ka Nimbahera, Tehsil Kapasan District Chittorgah, Application Number 3225908, Merit

8. Sarita Chahar D/o Dhana Ram Chahar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Purohito Ka Bass, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunun, Application Number 3229155, Merit No. 630

9. Vishnu Darji S/o Manak Ram Darji, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ward No 9 Naya Bazar, Kapasan District Chittorgarh,

10. Anita Kumari D/o Vijendra Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward No 26 Dhana District Jhunjhunun, Application

11. Manisha Patidar D/o Kailash Chandra, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 15 Gha 21 Ramsingjji Ki Bari, Hiran Magri Sector 11 Saweena Girwa (Rural) District Udaipur Application Number 3228267,merit No. 492.

(2 of 7) [CW-14172/2021]

12. Sona Kumari Dhakar D/o Magan Lal Dhakar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Sarsiya Charanan, District Bhilwara, Application Number 3232796, Merit No. 526.

13. Nasreen Bano Ansari D/o Mohammed Yasuf Ansari, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 120 Gali No . 1 Madrsa Ke Pass Guljar Nagar, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara, Application Number 3224338, Merit No. 668.

14. Rajesh Kumar Choudhary S/o Bheru Lal Choudhary, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Jat Mohalla Kuraj, District Rajsamand, Application Number 3227957, Merit No. 814.

15. Maina Basetia D/o Bhenru La Regar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 469 Regar Basti, Bojaipur, District Chittorgarh, Application Number 3224880, Merit No. 863.

16. Pawan Pinky Kumari Panwar D/o Ram Gopal Panwar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Gram Ratanpura, Sanwatgarh District Tonk, Application Number3245548, Merit No. 747.

17. Neeraj S/o Omprakash, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Jata Wali Dhani, Sukhawas, District Jaipur Application Number 3244437, Merit No. 954.

18. Ruzma Sayad D/o Sayad Iqbal Ali, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 597 Bhikhari Nathji Ka Math Girwa, District Udaipur, Application Number 3250259, Merit No. 554.

19. Monika Joshi D/o Kailash Chandra Joshi, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Kothar Mohalla, Jain Mandir Ke Pass Ward No 19 Shahpura, Bhilawara, Application Number 3246264, Merit No. 1046.

20. Ashok Kumar S/o Tej Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 1-

G-14 Stc Housing Board Bharatpur Application Number 3240043, Merit No. 1161.

21. Gourav Singh S/o Harbhan Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 46 Faujdar Thok Manji Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur, Application Number 3239668, Merit No. 1274.

22. Sarita Kumar D/o Sardara Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Jhakhal Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhnun, Application Number 3226061,merit No. 1344.

23. Manoj Kumari D/o Nopa Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 131 Aguna Bas Rampura District Sikar, Application Number 3230160,merit No. 1368.

24. Priyanka Kumari D/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No 17 Choudhary Colonu Godia Dharam

(3 of 7) [CW-14172/2021]

Kanta Ke Pass Chirawa, District Jhunjhunun, Application Number 3256083, Merit No. 1436.

25. Saranjit Kaur D/o Sukhdev Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 1037 Mangalwad Choraya Tehsil Dhugala, District Chittorgarh, Application Number 3240749,merit No. 1555.

26. Anita Fageriya D/o Likhami Chand, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Swami Kidnani Nechwa, District Sikar, Application Number 3227702, Merit No. 1620.

27. Gayatri Kumari Teli D/o Narayan Lal Teli, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Tejpur, District Chittorgarh, Application Number 3242017, Merit No. 1728.

28. Anjana Prajapat D/o Pema Ram Prajapat, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Dilkhush Still Furniture Bus Stand Railmagra, District Rajsamand, Application Number 3230847, Merit No. 1792.

29. Hari Singh Gurjar S/o Roop Chand Gurjar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward No 11 Govati, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar Application Number 3249720, Merit No. 2087.

30. Rakesh Kumawat S/o Verdhichand Kumawat, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Purani Parasoli, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara, Application Number 3246362 , Merit No. 2153.

31. Meenakshi Sen D/o Sunil Kumar Sen, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 15 Bhattwari Amba Mata Scheme, Shastri Circle, District Udaipur, Application Number 3241109, Merit No. 2198.

32. Sarita Goswami D/o Chandrapuri Goswami, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Opp. Dhauji Ki Bawri, Shree Bhairway Nagar Bedwas (Rural), Debari District Udaipur, Application Number 3279380, Merit No. 2233.

33. Reena Devi D/o Bikram Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Sethwali Gali Tuhiya Bharatpur, District Bharatpur, Application Number 3225750, Merit No. 3019.

34. Sharwan Kumar Labana S/o Lalit Kumar Labana, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ward No 11 Khusalgarh Road Rohaniya Ramsingh District Banswara, Application Number 3260790, Merit No. 3576.

35. Antim Bala Regar D/o Udai Lal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 27 B Vaishali Nagar Segwa Road Housing Board District Chittorgarh, Application Number 3233642, Merti No.

(4 of 7) [CW-14172/2021]

1757.

36. Sanju Kumari D/o Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Chara Ka Bass, Jhunjhunun District Jhunjhunun, Application Number 3230228, Merit No. 1342.

37. Sanjay Kumar Katariya S/o Ramsahay Verma, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ward No 11 Deipol Chunginaka Nainwa, District Bundi, Application Number 3238236, Merit No. 1560.

38. Sona Verma D/o Kalyan Mal Verma, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Chunginaka Ward No 15 Nainwa, District Bundi, Application Number 3235808,merit No. 1598.

39. Farha D/o Fayyaz Ahmed, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Higher Secondary School Ke Piche Khanpur, District Jhalawar, Application Number 3230732, Merit No. 1387.

----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, Rajsthan.

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

4. The Principal And Controller, Ravindranath Tagore Medical College And Joint Hospital Group, Udaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla.

For Respondent(s)          :



             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

(5 of 7) [CW-14172/2021]

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 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

(6 of 7) [CW-14172/2021]

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. 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

(7 of 7) [CW-14172/2021]

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).

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 342-Sachin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)