Satveer vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 12163 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9868/2022

1. Satveer S/o Prabhu Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Pandreu Teeba, Dist. Churu, Rajasthan. At Present Posting Government Upper Primary School Chhoraliya Nada, Koshlu, Dist. Barmer.

2. Pooja D/o Madan Lal W/o Devilal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Jogi Aasan Mohalla, Tehsil Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh, At Present Posting Gups Gehukhedi, District- Baran.

3. Navin Bijarania S/o Gopal Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 2 Jato Ka Bas, Chak Rajiyasar, Dist. Churu. At Present Posting Gups Kumbhasar/ratadiya Dist. Bikaner.

4. Ram Ratan S/o Karni Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Bhimsar, Dist. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. At Present Posting Government Primary School Bhanwarkiya Block Kapasan, Dist. Chittorgarh.

5. Santosh Kanwar W/o Bhupendra Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 2 Satado Ki Haweli Ke Samne Gayatri Nagar, Dist. Churu, Rajasthan. At Present Posting Government Girls Primary School, Raythal, Dist. Baran.

6. Mukesh Kumar S/o Gugan Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward No. 04, Kharsandi, Dist. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. Government Upper Primary School Billi Ki Bhagal, Kama/ Fatehpur, Block Khamnor, Dist.rajsamand.

7. Nirmal Kumar Jangir S/o Prahlad Rai, Aged About 30 Years, R/ o Kathawala, Tehsil Chaksu, Laxmipura @ Kathawala, Dist. Jaipur Rajasthan. At Present Posting Government Primary School, Ganeshpura/badodiya Kala, Block Kherabad, Dist. - Kota.

8. Brijesh Kumar Swami S/o Matadeen, Aged About 37 Years, R/ o Ward No. 3 School Ke Pass, Sevara, Teori, Dist. Jaipur, Rajasthan. At Present Posting Government Girls Upper Primary School Banta, Dist. Pali.

9. Sita Ram Kumhar S/o Ram Lal Kumhar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Surdhana Chauhanan, Dist. Bikaner Rajasthan. At Present Posting Government Girls Upper Primary School Bhandar, Block Bali, District. Pali.

10. Ramswaroop S/o Atma Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 162, Choudharyo Ka Mohalla, Nathawaniyan, Lalanawas, Lathwaniya, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. At Present Posting Government Upper Primary School Dhirji Bhatiyan Dhir Ji Ki Dhani/ Rajbera, Block - Sheo, District - Barmer.

11. Shrawan Kumar S/o Purushotam, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Chhajusar, Chhajoosar, Kaklasar, Dist. Churu Rajasthan. At Present Posting Government Upper Primary School Inyarafant, Block - Bidasar Dist. Churu.

12. Suresh Kumar S/o Ramdev Gaina, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Bhangiwad Ramdev Mandir Mohalla, Bhagiwad, District Churu Rajasthan. At Present Posting Government Upper Primary School Kallasar, Block Rawatsar, Dist. Hanumangarh.

13. Amit Kumar S/o Magharam Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/ o Ward No. 14, Kalu Road, Lunkaransar, Dist. Bikaner Rajasthan. At Present Posting Government Upper Primary School Biramsar, Block - Sridungargarh, District - Bikaner.

14. Sukh Ram S/o Hardat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Kikrali, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. At Present

(2 of 6) [CW-9868/2022]

Posting Government Upper Primary School Lodhiyana Wada, Block Aamet, Dist. Rajsamand.

15. Mukesh Kumar Jangid S/o Bajrang Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Jangido Ki Dhani, Kotra, Borda, Dist. Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan At Present Posting Government Upper Primary School, Kalyanpura Dholi Bhipur, Block - Malpura-, Dist. - Tonk.

16. Nirmala Kumari W/o Suresh Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o H.n. 137 Brahman Mohalla, Mardatoo Bari, Dist. Sikar, At Present Posting Gups Bassi Kheda, Block Chittorgarh, Dist. Chittorgarh, Raj.

17. Shanu Modi W/o Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Nangal, Dist. Sikar, Raj. At Present Posting Gups Sarana, Block Ajmer Rural, Dist. Ajmer, Raj.

18. Narendra Sharma S/o Laxmi Narayan, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Manjhee, Manjhi, Nagaur Dist. Nagaur, At Present Posting Gups Kalvi, Block Jayal, Dist. Nagaur, Raj.

19. Kamod Bera W/o Dinesh Tandi, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Idwa, Tehsil Degana, Dist. Nagaur, Raj. At Present Posting Gups Malas Gusiyan Rohindi, Block Parbatsar, Dist. Nagaur, Raj.

20. Kishor Kumar S/o Dhara Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Falka, Tehsil Jaitaran, Dist. Pali, Raj. At Present Posting Gups Hindola, Block Bhim, Dist. Rajsamand.

21. Kallu Ram Mahawar S/o Laxmi Narayan Mahawar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Bada Bass Khedli Darwaja, Bhandarej, Dist. Dausa, Raj. At Present Posting Gups Sagwadiya, Block Nimbaheda, Dist. Chittorgarh, Raj.

22. Prakash Chand Sharma S/o Ramawatar Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Rampura Thoi, Dist. Sikar, Raj. At Present Posting Gups Chaunsala, Block Kherabad, Dist. Kota, Raj.

23. Rakesh Kumar Gurjar S/o Arjun Kumar Gurjar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Bid Ki Dhani Bagwada, Tehsil Amer Bagwada, Dist. Jaipur, Raj. At Present Posting Gups Bododiya Khurd, Block Kherabad, Dist. Kota, Raj.

24. Sunil Kumar Meena S/o Jagdish Prasad Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Meeno Ka Mohalla, Samod Dist. Jaipur, Raj. At Present Posting Gups Bachhusar Mandarpura, Block Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh, Raj.

25. Peer Singh S/o Ganpat Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Danji Ki Hodi Agor, Dist. Barmer, Raj. At Present Posting Gups Harayali Nadi, Block Barmer, Dist. Barmer, Raj.

26. Chandra Kanwar D/o Fateh Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o C.a. 20 Mahaveer Nagar, Dist. Barmer, At Present Posting Gups Harayali Nadi, Block Barmer, Dist. Barmer, Raj.

27. Surender Kumar S/o Laxmi Narayan, Aged About 37 Years, R/ o 55 Rb (B) Ramawali, Dist. Ganganagar, Raj. At Present Posting Gups Sema Ka Guda, Block Khamnor, Dist. Rajsamand, Raj.

28. Mahender Singh S/o Ram Kumar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Kumanaron Ki Basi, Ward No. 4 Village Santpura, 1 Ptp, Dist. Hanumangarh, Raj. At Present Posting Gups 2 Sbn Sabuyana, Block Tibbi, Dist. Hanumangarh, Raj.

29. Manohar Lal S/o Munshi Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 06, Village Dholpaliya, Tehsil Bhadra, Dist. Hanumangarh, Raj. At Present Posting Gups Bherusari, Block Rawatsar, Dist.

                                            (3 of 6)                [CW-9868/2022]


      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 Barmer, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Baran, District Baran, Rajasthan.

6. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

7. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

8. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Rajsamand, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

9. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Kota, District Kota, Rajasthan.

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

11. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Churu, District Churu, Rajasthan.

12. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

13. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Tonk, District Tonk, Rajasthan.

14. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Ajmer, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

15. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagaur, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

16. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

17. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, District Baran, Rajasthan.

18. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

19. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

20. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

21. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, District Kota, Rajasthan.

22. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, District Pali, Rajasthan.

23. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, District Churu, Rajasthan.

24. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

(4 of 6) [CW-9868/2022]

25. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, District Tonk, Rajasthan.

26. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

27. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanwar Singh Rathore.

For Respondent(s)           :


          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
                         Order
  10/10/2022

Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks withdrawal of the

writ petition on behalf of petitioners No.2, 5, 7, 15, 17 & 23 with

liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court qua the said

petitioners.

In view of the submissions made, the writ petition is

dismissed as withdrawn qua petitioners No.2, 5, 7, 15, 17 & 23

with liberty as aforesaid.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners (except

petitioners No.2, 5, 7, 15, 17 & 23) 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).

(5 of 6) [CW-9868/2022]

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 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

(6 of 6) [CW-9868/2022]

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 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 (except petitioners No.2, 5, 7, 15, 17 & 23)

is also disposed of in light of order passed in the case of Om

Prakash (supra).

The order has been passed based on the submissions made

in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the

veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,

the averments made therein are found to be correct, the

petitioners (except petitioners No.2, 5, 7, 15, 17 & 23) would be

entitled to the relief.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 53-Sumit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)