Intekhab Hussain vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 867 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 419/2022

1. Intekhab Hussain S/o Ishtiyak Hussain, Aged About 45 Years, Hasani Gali, Mohalla Ghanta, Dungarpur, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan, Application Number 3114617, Merit No. 157, Tsp.

2. Rais Mohammad S/o Hamid Ali, Aged About 31 Years, Ward No.20, Kapren Tehsil Keshavrai Patan,, District Bundi, Application Number 3257714, Merit No. 790.

3. Sarfraj Bhomiya S/o Salim Khan Bhomiya, Aged About 32 Years, Shekho Ka Mohalla, Talab Ke Pass, Mandal, District Bhilwara, Application Number 3226744, Merit No. 465.

4. Rakesh Samota S/o Hanuman Sahay Samota, Aged About 33 Years, 25 A Shiv Nagar Murlipura Scheme, V.k.i. Area, Jaipur, District Jaipur. Application Number 3226030, Merit No.1921.

5. Pavan Kumar S/o Hukam Chand, Aged About 29 Years, Laxmangarh Road, Behind Petrol Pump Ke Pass Kathumar, Alwar District Alwar Application Number 3226188 Merit No. 1147.

6. Vijendar Singh Solanki S/o Babu Singh Solanki, Aged About 32 Years, Bal Niketan School Ke Pass, Balchand Para, Bundi District Bundi, Application Number 3256301 Merit No.873.

7. Bhumika Chouhan D/o Gopal Singh Chouhan, Aged About 29 Years, 142, Sahid Bhagat Singh Nagar, Pula, Udaipur District Udaipur, Application Number 3229716, Merit No.379.

8. Hemant Joshi S/o Kalu Lal Joshi, Aged About 36 Years, 61 Bhopalwari, Near Jain Samaj Nohra, Koliyari, Tehsil Jhadol, Udaipur, District Udaipur, Application Number 3230378, Merit No.1251.

9. Deepak Kumar Kalal S/o Shankar Lal Kalal, Aged About 35 Years, Thana, Udaipur, District Udaipur, Application Number 3227753, Merit No.1815.

10. Nayana Koted D/o Himmat Lal Koted, Aged About 31 Years, Ward No.16, Bor Ka Talab, Dungarpur, District Dungarpur, Application Number 3113946, Merit No.25.

11. Sita Ram S/o Hanuman Ram Regar, Aged About 36 Years,

(2 of 6) [CW-419/2022]

Bhinchro Ka Bass, Nagaur, District Nagaur, Application Number 3226446, Merit No.1463.

12. Shabnam Banu D/o Noor Mohammad, Aged About 29 Years, Lambiya Station, Lambiya Kallan, Railgaon District Bhilwara, Application Number 3273894, Merit No.506.

13. Renu Singh D/o Veerendra Singh, Aged About 36 Years, Madarpur Road, Govind Nagar, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur, Application Number 3250295, Merit No.730.

14. Gopesh Kumar Sharma S/o Ramji Lal Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, Ward No.8, Naroli Dang, Tehsil Sapotra Karauli, District Karauli, Application Number 3239466, Merit No.1231.

15. Paras Ram Jatav S/o Sher Singh Jatav, Aged About 30 Years, Pipalhera, Tighariya, Hindaun, District Karauli, Application Number 3240559, Merit No.1135.

16. Kuldeep Nagar S/o Ramkishan Nagar, Aged About 31 Years, Sahrod, Baran, District Baran, Application Number 3251756, Merit No.1641.

17. Mohammed Zafar Iqbal S/o Abdul Kalam, Aged About 31 Years, House No.3-Ra-27, Mariyam Manzil, Vigyan Nagar, Kota, District Kota, Application Number 3232376, Merit No.974.

18. Mahipal Bawal S/o Ram Lal, Aged About 31 Years, Ramdev Mohalla, Kot Baliyaan, Pali, District Pali, Application Number 3233091, Merit No.1414.

19. Sushil Kumar Suman S/o Tota Ram Suman, Aged About 34 Years, Kherla Bujurg, Dausa, District Dausa, Application Number 3236009, Merit No.1566.

20. Hari Narayan Prajapat S/o Dharm Singh Prajapat, Aged About 30 Years, Mandawara Road, Near Aara Machine, Kailash Nagar, Hindaun City, District Karauli, Application Number 3225438, Merit No.293.

21. Prakash Kumar Gour S/o Mahaveer Prasad Gour, Aged About 31 Years, 39 Raghunath Ji Ka Mandir Ki Gali, Toadaraisingh, Tonk, District Tonk, Application Number 3230112, Merit No.842.

22. Heena Gupta D/o Suresh Chandra Gupta, Aged About 31 Years, Ganv Aanandpuri, Tehsil And District Banswara, Application Number 3236215, Merit No.771.

23. Dinesh Kumar Sharma S/o Prakash Chandra Sharma,

(3 of 6) [CW-419/2022]

Aged About 35 Years, Sambhugarh, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara, Application Number 3243964, Merit No.2252.

24. Bhavna Jain D/o Kesu Lal Jain, Aged About 31 Years, Village Post Kaliyari, Tehsil Jadol, District Udaipur, Application Number 3229958, Merit No.960

25. Jasoda Swami D/o Prem Das, Aged About 32 Years, Abasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu, Application Number 3224942, Merit No.1170

26. Payal Kumari D/o Puran Singh, Aged About 29 Years, Pratap Thok Pujari Mohalla, Awar, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur, Application Number 3243657, Merit No.479

27. Suresh Kumar S/o Nanda Ram, Aged About 30 Years, Bhincharo Ki Dhani, Borawar, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur, Merit No.847

28. Gopal Soni S/o Matadeen Soni, Aged About 28 Years, New Colony, Thanagazi, Alwar, District Alwar, Application Number 3263397, Merit No.1572

29. Pooja Mali D/o Sambhu Lal Mali, Aged About 32 Years, 39 Banjaro Ki Basti, Keda Jagpura, Rampu District Kota, Application Number 3243068 Merit No.1289

30. Priti D/o Ganshyam Singh, Aged About 29 Years, Village Vinaua, Post Jatmasi Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur, Merit No.3006

31. Shobha Balotiya D/o Durga Kumar Balotiya, Aged About 32 Years, 54/18 Peer Road, Digi Bajar, Shisha Khan, Ajmer, District Ajmer, Rajasthan

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. The Director (Non Gazetted), 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, Ravindranath Tagore Medical College And Joint Hospital Group, Udaipur.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. V.S. Bhawla (through VC)


                                              (4 of 6)                  [CW-419/2022]


For Respondent(s)          :



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                      Order

18/01/2022

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners 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,

which writ petition has been decided on 21.11.2017 granting relief

to the petitioner 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

(5 of 6) [CW-419/2022]

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 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 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

(6 of 6) [CW-419/2022]

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 35-Sumit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)