Suraj Mal Ninama vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 11091 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12670/2022

1. Suraj Mal Ninama S/o Shri Badji Ninama, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Bhaler Bhodar, Tehsil Anandpuri, District Banswara.

2. Laxman Lal Katija S/o Shri Punja Ji Katija, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Koivav, Post Navadhara, Tehsil Arthuna, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

3. Ishwar Lal S/o Shri Homi Pargi, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Borvaniya Post Barjadiya, Tehsil Anandpuri, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

4. Baburam Masar S/o Shri Jeevat Ram Masar, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Navaganv, Post Chhaja, Tehsil Anandpuri, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

5. Ramlal Pargi S/o Shri Dhanji Pargi, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Mukam Village Koba, Post Choradi, Tehsil Bagidora, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

6. Raman Lal Chanana Nephe W/o Shri Naga Chanana, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village And Post Chordi, Tehsil Anandpuri, District Banswara.

7. Keshav Lal Damor S/o Shri Ladji Damor, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Nawaghra, Post Tamtiya, Via Anandpuri, District- Banswara.

8. Magan Lal Patel S/o Shri Ganesh Lal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Mukam Post Mundari, Tehsil Anandpuri, District Banswara.

9. Mohan Lal Khant S/o Shri Kishor Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Mukam Punjakhuladi, Post Mundari, Tehsil Anandpuri, District Banswara.

10. Subhash Chandra Khant S/o Hari Ram Khant, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Bhatar, Gadhi, District Banswara.

11. Laxman Singh Ninama S/o Kacharu Lal Ninama, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Gulabpura, Bagidora, District Banswara.

12. Ramesh Chandra Rawat S/o Gautam Rawat, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Renganiya, Bagidora, District Banswara.

13. Manoj Kumar Barjod S/o Kanti Lal, Aged About 41 Years, R/ o Village And Post Saliya, Tehsil Gangandtalai, District Banswara.

14. Ramesh Chandra Ninama S/o Jagmal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Post Bhaler Bhodar, Tehsil Anandpuri, District Banswara.

15. Samna Damor S/o Lakhu Ji, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Jeevakhuta, Tehsil Sajjangarh, District-Banswara.

16. Magan Lal Damor S/o Hadiya, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village Mirchghati, Post Patan, Tehsil Kushalgarh, District Banswara

17. Kalu Ram Katara S/o Khatuji Katara, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Gangadtalai, Tehsil Gangadtalai, District Banswara.

18. Sarwan Kumar Pargi S/o Punja Pargi, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Near Sr. Sec. School, Patiya Galiya, Post Bhaler Bhodar, Tehsil Anandpuri, District Banswara.

(2 of 6) [CW-12670/2022]

19. Ramesh Chandra Damor S/o Shri Vagajee Damor, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Dalpura, Post Bhaler Bhodar, Tehsil Anandpuri, District Banswara.

20. Dhanpal Ninama S/o Shri Keshari Singh, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Bhaler Chamna, Post Bhaler Bhodar, Tehsil Anandpuri, District Banswara.

21. Nathu Lal S/o Shri Dhanji Patel, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Village And Post Udaipura Bada, Tehsil Anandpuri, District Banswara.

22. Jeetmal Damor S/o Shri Vag Ji Damor, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village Dalpura, Post Bhaler Bhodar, Tehsil Anandpuri, District Banswara..

23. Nagendra Kumar Khadiya S/o Shri Badiyaji Khadiya, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village And Post Saliya, Tehsil Gangdtalai, District Banswara.

24. Mohan Lal Pargi S/o Shri Haliya, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village And Post Sundrav, Tehsil Anandpuri, District Banswara.

25. Har Lal Dayama S/o Shri Jokhaji, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Pichhawada, Post Kajliya, Tehsil Anandpuri, District Banswara.

26. Kamla Shankar Khant S/o Shri Nanji, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Bhawanpura, Post Udaipur Bada, Tehsil Anandpuri, District Banswara.

27. Prabhu Lal Pargi S/o Shri Jokhaji, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Bavdi Duda, Post Bhaler Bhodar, Tehsil Anandpuri, District Banswara.

28. Vinod Katara S/o Johan Katara, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Kharodi, Post Jambudi, Tehsil Gangedtalai, District Banswara.

29. Ramesh Chandra Garasiya S/o Valji, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Khediya, Post Tambesara, Tehsil Sajjnagarh, District Banswara.

30. Poonam Chand S/o Chetan Katija, Aged About 47 Years, R/ o Village Hotiya Talai,, Post Bakhatpura, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara.

31. Rajesh Kumar Kharadi S/o Laxman Lal Kharadi, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Timurava,, Post Tamatiya Rathor, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara.

32. Ravindra Kumar Bhabor S/o Maganlal Bhabor, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Badliya, Barliya, District Banswara.

33. Sarla Devi D/o Gumla Bhai, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Poonam Colony, Ta Camp, Ke Pas, Gujrati Mohalla, Kota, District Kota.

34. Savita Kumari Ninama W/o Leem Chand, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Rohaniya, District Banswara.

35. Rampyari Makvana W/o Chandra Shekhar D/o Madiya Ji Makvana, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Opp. Bhavya Furniture, Kenal Road Bhavanpura, Near Nilam Nagar, Banswara, District Banswara.

36. Laxmi Nanoma W/o Rajendra Nanoma, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Naya Talab, Ps Gamdi Ahada, District Dungarpur.

37. Vijay Kumar Yadav S/o Ramaji Yadav, Aged About 46 Years,

(3 of 6) [CW-12670/2022]

R/o Village Yadav Mohalla Umbada, Tehsil-Garhi,district Banswara.

38. Surjeet Rathore S/o Megaji, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Ward No.04, Dukwara, District Banswara.

39. Bhimchand Kamol S/o Hariya Kamol, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Timbamahudi,post Tambesara, Tehsil- Sajjangarh, District Banswara.

40. Gang Singh Amaliyar S/o Kalji Amaliyar, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Ranagi, Post-Tambesara, Tehsil- Sajjangarh, District Banswara.

41. Sagar Add D/o Sadar Singh Add W/o Gang Singh Amliyar, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Village Ranagi, Post- Tambesara, Tehsil-Sajjangarh, District Banswara.

42. Tej Singh Damor S/o Mata Damor, Aged About 48 Years, R/ o Village, Kasarwadi, Ward No.04, Kasala Fala, Kasanwari, Kesharwadi District Banswara.

43. Gotamlal S/o Punjalal Garasiya, Aged About 42 Years, R/ovillage, Gamaniya Hamira, Post Gangadtalai, Tehsil- Gangadtalai, District Banswara.

44. Hakar Singh S/o Khemji Ninama, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village, Kharsana, Post Khodalim, Tehsil- Gangadtalai, District Banswara.

45. Mani Lal Khant S/o Khema, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village, Kathiriya Chhaja, Tehsil- Anandpuri, District Banswara.

----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 Banswara, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

5. District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Banswara. Rajasthan.

6. District Education Officer (Secondary Education), Banswara. Rajasthan.

                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. O.P. Sangwa.
For Respondent(s)        :


        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
                       Order
06/09/2022

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that for

the same recruitment, similarly situated petitioners had

(4 of 6) [CW-12670/2022]

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 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 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

(5 of 6) [CW-12670/2022]

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 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 petitioner 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."

(6 of 6) [CW-12670/2022]

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). 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 would be entitled to the relief.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 106-pradeep/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)