Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manish Dev Joshi vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:41999) on 4 December, 2023
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:41999]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3292/2019
Manish Dev Joshi S/o Shri Kanni Ram Joshi, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village And Post Koliyari, Tehsil Jhadol, District
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The District Programme Coordinator Cum District
Collector, Udaipur.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Udaipur.
5. The Block Development Officer, Panchayati Samiti, Jhadol,
Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Sodha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Piyush Bhandari for Mr. Sunil
Beniwal, AAG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
04/12/2023
1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the
controversy in question is squarely covered by the judgment
passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9899/2019; Satdev v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 25.07.2019.
2. The Satdev's case (supra) was decided by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court relying upon the judgment passed in S.B.
[2023:RJ-JD:41999] (2 of 4) [CW-3292/2019]
Civil Writ Petition No.21214/2017; Om Prakash & Ors. v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 21.11.2017.
3. In Om Prakash's case (supra), the Court observed and
ordered 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 6 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
[2023:RJ-JD:41999] (3 of 4) [CW-3292/2019]
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
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. In fact, 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."
4. The fact situation in the present case is not different from
the cases of Om Prakash and Satdev (supra), wherein relief was
[2023:RJ-JD:41999] (4 of 4) [CW-3292/2019]
granted on account of delayed appointment qua persons, who
were lower in merit to the petitioners therein.
5. In view thereof, the present writ petition is allowed in light of
the judgment passed in Om Prakash and Satdev's case (supra).
The petitioner may make a representation to the respondents
pointing out the requisite dates etc., based on which, the
respondents would deal with the representation while according
notional benefits to the petitioner from the date persons similarly
situated to the petitioner, were accorded appointment.
6. Needful be done within a period of eight weeks from the
date of the presentation of the representation. All the pending
applications also stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
193-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
