Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajni vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 October, 2021
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13769/2021
Rajni W/o Manoj Kumar, Aged About 39 Years, Ward No. 04,
Near Krishi Nagar Mandi Samiti, Kesa Risinghpur Tehsil
Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum
Commissioner, Department Of Rural And Development
And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Sri
Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
5. The Block Development Officer, P.s. Anupgarh, Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
6. The Chief Block Elementary Education Officer, P.s.
Anupgarh, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
7. The Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Banda
Ganw, Anupgarh, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kuber Choudhary.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
06/10/2021
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that for
the same recruitment, similarly situated petitioners had
approached Jaipur Bench of this Court in Om Prakash & Ors. v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21214/2017,
(2 of 4) [CW-13769/2021]
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), the Bench at Jaipur 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
(3 of 4) [CW-13769/2021]
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.
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
(4 of 4) [CW-13769/2021]
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 petitioner is also disposed of in light of order passed in
the case of Om Prakash (supra).
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
47-Sumit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
