Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nand Lal Meena vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 4 February, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023/RJJD/003928]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4322/2019
Nand Lal Meena S/o Shri Moti Lal Meena, Aged About 33 Years,
Village Naya Guda, Post Bujara, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
----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. Abhishek Sharma.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. KK Bissa, AGC.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
04/02/2023
Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the
representation of the petitioner may be considered by the
respondents in light of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench
of this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Lokesh Mali Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3335/2019)
decided on 07.04.2022. The order dated 07.04.2022reads as
under:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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.
Counsel for the respondents does not refute the said
submission.
The Satdev's case (supra) was decided by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court relying upon the
judgment passed in S.B. (2 of 4) [CW-3335/2019]
(Downloaded on 04/02/2023 at 11:19:59 PM)
[2023/RJJD/003928] (2 of 3) [CW-4322/2019]
Civil Writ Petition No.21214/2017; Om Prakash & Ors.
v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 21.11.2017.
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 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. 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,
(Downloaded on 04/02/2023 at 11:19:59 PM)
[2023/RJJD/003928] (3 of 3) [CW-4322/2019]
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."
The fact situation in the present case is not
different from the cases of Om Prakash and Satdev
(supra), wherein relief was granted on account of
delayed appointment qua persons, who were lower in
merit to the petitioners therein.
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.
Needful be done within a period of four weeks
from the date of the presentation of the
representation.
All the pending applications also stand disposed
of."
Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with
direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the
petitioner in terms of the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in Lokesh Mali (Supra). All pending applications also
stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
41-Jitender
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
