Rajasthan High Court

Asha Ram Choudhary S/O Shri. ... vs State Of Rajasthan Through ... on 6 February, 2023

Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand

[2023/RJJP/001838]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25601/2018

1.       Asha Ram Choudhary S/o Shri. Shyojiram Choudhary,
         Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Village Kheda, Post
         Siras, Tehsil Niwai, Dist. Tonk (Rajasthan).
2.       Vikramaditya Sharma S/o Shri. Om Prakash Sharma, age
         years, Resident Of Opposite Ashwani School, Nehru
         Colony, Ward No. 17, Lalsot, Dist. Dausa (Rajasthan).
3.       Chandra Mohan Sharma S/o Ram Gopal Sharma, Resident
         Of P.N. 07, Murali Manohar Ji Mandir, Ramganj Chaupad,
         Jaipur (Rajasthan).
4.       Dinesh Kumar Saini S/o Shri. Narayan Saini, Aged About
         45 Years, Resident Of Moti Ka Vas, Jodha Ki Dhani, Village
         Panchayar, Dist. Dausa (Rajasthan).
5.       Yogesh Choudhary S/o Shri. Mohan Lal Choudhary, Age
         About 29 Years, Resident Of A-47, Mitra Nagar Colony,
         Ram Nagar, Sodala, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
6.       Hanumana Ram Meghwal S/o Surja Ram Meghwal, Age
         About 37 Years, Resident Of Near Gogamedi, Duliyawas,
         Sujangarh, Tehsil Sujangarh, Dist. Churu (Rajasthan).
7.       Pankaj Vaishnav S/o Shri. G.S. Lal, Age years, Resident Of
         A-50, Indira Colony, Nagaur (Rajasthan).
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan Through Principle Secretary, Medical
         And    Health,   Government           Of    Rajasthan,     Government
         Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Director, Medical And Health Services, Government Of
         Rajasthan, Swasthay Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3.       Additional Director (Administration), Medical And Health
         Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Swasthay Bhawan,
         Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4.       Principal Secretary, Department Of General Administration
         And Reform (Gad), Secretariat, Jaipur.
5.       Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat,
         Jaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondents

[2023/RJJP/001838] (2 of 5) [CW-25601/2018]

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhupender Pareek, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

06/02/2023

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioners with

the following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may most graciously be pleased to call for the record, examine the same and accept and allow this writ petition of humble petitioner, and -

(i) to grant the consequential benefit of their services from the date of March 2013 of first select list candidate.

(ii) to direct the respondents to treat the petitioners services according to first select list candidate and also arrear of the salary, A.G.I., and other consequential benefits may be granted from March, 2013.

(iii) to direct the respondents to confirmation of the petitioners may be done according to or treating their services from first select list candidate on March 2013.

(iv) any other order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper may also kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner."

Counsel submits that with regard to the same issue,

involved in the instant petition arose out of the advertisement

dated 17.05.2011 for the post of L.D.C., has already been set at

rest by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mukesh

Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.

[2023/RJJP/001838] (3 of 5) [CW-25601/2018]

(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16922/2019 decided on

06.05.2022. Counsel submits that the instant petition may be

disposed of in the light of the aforesaid order.

Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the

arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners but they are

not in a position to controvert the factual aspect.

Considering the arguments put forward by the counsel

for the parties, instant petition stands disposed of looking to the

fact that the controversy involved in this petition has already been

set at rest by this Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar Sharma

(supra) by observing thus:

"11. It is no doubt true rather admitted by both the parties that the petitioners herein were given appointment pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Saurabh Kumar Kothari (supra) wherein while allowing the writ petitions the Division Bench of this Court specifically directed ; (a) to prepare a fresh merit list of all the candidates who have participated in the combined competitive examination, 2011 held for the post of Lower Division Clerk, pursuant to advertisement dt.17.05.2011 and (b) further directed to recommend the names of successful candidates to the State Government keeping in view their order of merit, as per the number of advertised vacancies and the State Government was further directed to process the same thereafter and give appointments to the selected candidates after due compliance of the requirement of law & the scheme of Rules. In this background of the matter, when in compliance of the specific directions of the Division Bench of this Court, the fresh merit list has been prepared by the respondents which is obviously expected to be in terms of the relevant rules, then the seniority & notional benefits should also have been awarded, non-consideration & non-grant thereof has

[2023/RJJP/001838] (4 of 5) [CW-25601/2018]

become the reason for which the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the joint writ petition and upon an overall scrutiny of the record I am of the view that the submissions of the petitioners' counsels hold legal force.

12. In view of the discussion made here-in- above, this writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioners were given appointment in compliance of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Saurabh Kumar Kothari (supra) in which liberty was granted to the respondents to terminate services of ineligible persons, which although has not been done by the respondents and such persons are still working in the Department, that too over & above to the petitioners who are higher in the merit; secondly, in view of Rule 37 of the Rules of 1999 interse seniority shall follow the order in the list prepared under Rule 28 & 29 of the Rules, 1999 respectively and admittedly, the respondents have prepared the fresh select list of the selected candidates in compliance of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court in the matter of Saurabh Kumar Kothari (supra); thirdly the judgment in the matter of Saurabh Kumar Kothari (supra) was passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 03.02.2016 and it is not the case of the respondents that the said judgment ever became subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, meaning thereby the said judgment has already attained finality, then respondents were duty bound to obey and comply the directions contained in the judgment passed in the matter of Saurabh Kumar Kothari (supra) in letter and spirit but on the contrary the respondents kept the matter pending for grant of seniority & notional benefits as per Rules for more than five years with them and; lastly, the petitioners have participated in the same selection process and their appointment got delayed due to negligence of the respondents, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the benefits of notional fixation i.e. seniority, promotion & pay scale etc. from the

[2023/RJJP/001838] (5 of 5) [CW-25601/2018]

date when persons were appointed in the same selection process.

13. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to give notional benefits like seniority and promotion to the petitioners from the date when the less meritorious persons were given appointment by the respondents in pursuance to the advertisement dated 17.05.2011. All the pending applications stand disposed of."

Instant petition also stands disposed of in the light of

the case of Mukesh Kumar Sharma (supra). The stay application

as well as other application (pending, if any) also stands disposed

of accordingly.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

MR/29