Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Praveen Singh Chouhan vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 25 August, 2023

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2023:RJ-JD:27086]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12626/2023

1. Praveen Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Padam Singh Chouhan, Aged About 33 Years, Belt No. 861, Village Seewara Chouhan, Tehsil Chitawana, Distt. Jalore (Raj.).

2. Jayram S/o Shri Asuram, Aged About 35 Years, Belt No. 852, Village 359, Kabuki Ki Dhani, Sediya, Gundau, Tehsil Sanchore, Distt. Jalore (Raj.).

3. Parasa Ram S/o Shri Hira Ram, Aged About 36 Years, Belt No. 866 Village 252, Bhodo Ka Vas, Pamana, Dist. Jalore (Raj.).

4. Jeta Ram S/o Shri Heera Ram, Aged About 36 Years, Belt No. 855, Village Thobau, Dist. Jalore (Raj.).

5. Moola Ram S/o Shri Narayan Das, Aged About 39 Years, Belt No. 816, Village Ramsar Ka Kua, Post Rawtsar, Dist. Barmer (Raj.).

6. Sohan Ram Bishnoi S/o Shri Fusa Ram, Aged About 36 Years, Belt No. 398, Village / Post Moti Ji Ki Dhani, Mirpura, Tehsil Sanchore, Dist. Jalore (Raj.).

7. Chhatra Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Ranaram, Aged About 37 Years, Belt No. 840, Village Dhanta, Tehsil Sanchore And Distt. Sirohi (Raj.).

8. Asu Lal S/o Shri Hari Ram, Aged About 33 Years, Belt No. 859, Village 31, Bishnoiyo Ki Dhani, Dhanta, Pur, Distt. Jalore (Raj.).

9. Balaram Choudhary S/o Shri Bheraram Choudhary, Aged About 37 Years, Belt No. 818, Village 11 Bakaniyo Ka Vas, Kudla, Mange Ki Dhani, Distt. Barmer (Raj.).

10. Jaisaram Saran S/o Shri Herajram Choudhary, Aged About 39 Years, Belt No. 812, Village / Post Khadin, Tehsil Ramsar, Dist. Barmer (Raj.).

11. Gemar Singh S/o Shri Nathu Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Belt No. 811, Village Rajprohito Ka Bas, Mahabar, Dist. Barmer (Raj.).

12. Kaushala Ram S/o Shri Mota Ram Siyag, Aged About 34 Years, Belt No. 819, Vpo Taratara, Tajsar, Dist. Barmer (Raj.).

13. Banka Ram S/o Shri Gogaram Jani, Aged About 35 Years, Belt No. 823, Village / Post Harpuniyon Wala, Post Nahron Ki Nadi, Distt. Barmer (Raj.).

14. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Asuram, Aged About 34 Years, Belt No. 853, Vpo Jelatra, Post Deora, Distt. Jalore (Raj.).

15. Aidan Singh S/o Shri Jugat Singh, Aged About 33 Years, Belt N. 826, Vpo Mithara, Tehsil And Dist. Barmer (Raj.).

16. Indra Bishnoi W/o Shri Mangi Lal, Aged About 34 Years, Belt No. 282, Village / Post Jogau, Tehsil Bhinmal, Distt. Jalore (Raj.).

[2023:RJ-JD:27086] (2 of 6) [CW-12626/2023]

17. Jeevraj Choudhary S/o Shri Dharmendra Choudhary, Aged About 34 Years, Belt No. 838, Village / Post Sadulaniyon Ka Tala, Sanawara, Distt. Barmer (Raj.).

18. Subhash Vishnoi S/o Shri Soma Ram, Aged About 34 Years, Belt No. 822, Village - 396, Jagatiyon Ka Vas, Kuri, Distt. Barmer (Raj.).

19. Indu D/o Shri Kishana Ram, Aged About 35 Years, Belt No. 864, Village Bidani, Tehsil Sanchore, Distt. Jalore (Raj.).

20. Jetha Ram S/o Shri Jugata Ram, Aged About 38 Years, Belt No. 734, Village Pooniyon Ki Dhani, Jalipa, Agor, Dist. Barmer (Raj.).

21. Shambhu Singh S/o Shri Devraj Singh, Aged About 36 Years, Belt No. 814, Village 80, Goron Ka Tala, Dhanaoo, Dist - Barmer (Raj.).

22. Balwant Singh S/o Shri Ratan Singh, Aged About 33 Years, Belt No. 849 Village Arnay, Dist. Jalore (Raj.).

23. Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri Shanti Lal, Aged About 37 Years, Belt No. 863, Village / Post Sadri, Dist. Pali (Raj.).

24. Anriruddha Singh S/o Shri Shaitan Singh Sodha, Aged About 33 Years, Belt No. 821, Village P236, Nimba Ki Chakki, Indra Colony, Distt Barmer (Raj.).

25. Dharati Vijay Singh Rathore S/o Shri Jog Singh, Aged About 33 Years, Belt No. 860, Village Rodala, Distt. Jalore (Raj.).

26. Mahendra Singh Sisodiya S/o Shri Kamal Singh Sisodiya, Aged About 34 Years, Belt No. 854, Village Police Station Mount Abu, Block No. 03, Abu, Distt Sirohi (Raj.).

27. Puran Singh S/o Shri Parbat Singh, Aged About 34 Years, Belt No. 847, Village / Post Rajanwari, Unn, Dist. Jalore (Raj.).

28. Dilip Singh Bhati S/o Shri Bhabut Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Belt No. 850, Village Pachpadara, Tehsil And Dist. Jalore (Raj.).

29. Dodi Bai D/o Shri Choga Ram, Aged About 36 Years, Belt No. 856, Vpo Vada Naya, Bhadvi Dist. Jalore (Raj.).

30. Sohan Lal S/o Shri Dungara Ram, Aged About 34 Years, Belt No. 864, Village / Post Railway Station Gol Station Go Rs, Tehsil Pachpadra, Distt. Barmer (Raj.) At Present Posted Dist. Pali.

31. Devi Lal S/o Shri Maga Ram, Aged About 35 Years, Belt No. 205, Vpo Baytu Chimanji, Kerlipura, Distt. Barmer (Raj.), At Present Posted Dist Jodhpur Rural.

32. Ratan Lal S/o Shri Likhma Ram, Aged About 38 Years, Belt No. 114, Vpo Rampura, Post Garla, Dist. Barmer (Raj.) At Present Posted Dist. Jalore.

33. Laxman Lal Jat S/o Shri Ranglal Choudhary, Aged About 35 Years, Belt No. 582, Village / Post Bokrawas, Tehsil

[2023:RJ-JD:27086] (3 of 6) [CW-12626/2023]

Dudu, Distt Jaipur (Raj.) At Present Posted Dist. Ajmer.

34. Kishna Ram S/o Shri Deda Ram, Aged About 34 Years, Belt No. 358, Village / Post Mandawala, Distt Barmer (Raj.) At Present Posted Dist. Jalore.

35. Shiv Lal S/o Shri Birbal Ram, Aged About 35 Years, Beil No. 771, Vpo Bhacharna, Tehsil Luni, Distt. Jodhpur (Raj.).

36. Omaram S/o Shri Ram Kishan, Aged About 35 Years, Belt No. 857, R/o Village Jelatara, Tehsil Sanchore, Dist. Sirohi. At Present Police Line Sirohi, Dist. Sirohi (Raj.).

37. Girvar Singh S/o Shri Nop Singh, Aged About 33 Years, Bel No. 858, Village / Post 169-B-29, Zbs, Bjs Colony, Jodhpur Distt. Jodhpur (Raj.).

38. Saitan Singh S/o Shri Heer Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Belt No. 851, Village / Post 148, Ghanchiyo Ka Mohalla, Dhanpur, Bagra, Distt. Jalore (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance (Rules), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.).

4. Superintendent Of Police, Sirohi, District Sirohi (Raj.).

                                                                 ----Respondents


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

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

25/08/2023

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. 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

[2023:RJ-JD:27086] (4 of 6) [CW-12626/2023]

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 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

[2023:RJ-JD:27086] (5 of 6) [CW-12626/2023]

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.