Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rekha Sharma vs The Director (Primary Education) ... on 13 April, 2023

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2023/RJJD/010054] (1 of 5) [CW-4913/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4913/2023

1. Rekha Sharma D/o Moti Lal Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Shukla Colony, Karauli, Rajasthan.

2. Rahul Kumar Sharma S/o Mahesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Chetaram Colony, Station Road, Hindauncity, District Karauli, Rajasthan.

3. Ashwnee Kumar Meena S/o Ram Lal Meena, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Bhonyawala, Post Mohanpura, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. Ajmer Singh Meena S/o Kailashi Meena, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 67, Meena Basti, Surari Kala, Post Barauli, Tehsil Sarmathura, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.

5. Pushpa Devi Meena D/o Shishupal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Vpo Daulatpura Kotra, Via Morija, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

6. Smt. Seema Parsoya D/o Shri Omprakash Parsoya, Aged About 28 Years, W/o Shri Sayar Mal Pipliwal, R/o Piprali Road, Behind Royal Dharam Kanta, Ram Nagar, Sikar, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

7. Suman Kumari D/o Shri Kurra Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vpo Mehrana, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

8. Mohan Lal S/o Shri Ramdhan, Aged About 32 Years, Village-Ghat (Kanni Ki Dhani), Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar (Raj.).

9. Ramesh Kumar Kairwal S/o Shri Mool Chand Khairwal, Aged About 37 Years, Village Bhairubas, Post Jhajhar, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

10. Firdos Bano D/o Shri Nijamudin, Aged About 28 Years, Mohammedi Masjid Ke Pass, Imam Nagar, Ward No. 15, Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

11. Madhu Baswal D/o Shri Satya Narayan Baswal, Aged About 31 Years, 1-M-35 Mahaveer Nagar Extension Kota, Dadabadi Kota, Rajasthan.

12. Santra Kumari D/o Mulchand Jangid, Aged About 34 Years, Ranipura, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.).

13. Sharda Kumari D/o Shri Budhram, Aged About 32 Years, Village Jhanpuro, Post Khanpur Dagran, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

14. Renu D/o Shri Shyoram, Aged About 28 Years, Village Tatija, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

15. Munni Meena W/o Shri Deepak Kumar Meena, Aged About 34 Years, 1894-95 Moti Dungari Road, Nayla House Ke Samne, Shiv Mandir Ke Pass Anandpuri, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

[2023/RJJD/010054] (2 of 5) [CW-4913/2023]

16. Virendra Kumar Sharma S/o Roshan Lal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Nadbai, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The Director (Primary Education), Rajasthan, Bikaner.

2. The District Education Officer, (Elementary) Barmer.

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer.

4. The District Education Officer, (Elementary) Karauli.

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Karauli.

6. The District Education Officer, (Elementary) Ajmer.

7. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ajmer.

8. The District Education Officer, (Elementary) Jaipur.

9. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaipur.

10. The District Education Officer, (Elementary) Dholpur.

11. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dholpur.

12. The District Education Officer, (Elementary) Bharatpur.

13. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bharatpur.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Hansraj Nimbar
For Respondent(s)         :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

13/04/2023

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. vs.

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. Vs. 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

[2023/RJJD/010054] (3 of 5) [CW-4913/2023]

& 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 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

[2023/RJJD/010054] (4 of 5) [CW-4913/2023]

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.