Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Vishnu Kumar Garg vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 24 May, 2023

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2023/RJJD/017087] (1 of 6) [CW-7201/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7201/2023

1. Vishnu Kumar Garg S/o Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of 109, Behind Dairy Bhawan, Soniyana, District Chittorgarh (Posted At Gups Devada, Block Gangrar, District Chittorgarh).

2. Ranjeet Singh Solanki S/o Goru Lal Rajput, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Kurkiya Kalan, Langach, Kapasan, District Chittorgarh. (Posted At Gups Jaysinghpura, Block Gangrar, District Chittorgarh)

3. Badri Lal Jat S/o Uda Ram Jat, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 401, Soni Mohalla, Bhimgarh, Chittorgarh. (Posted At Gsss Baru, Block Rashmi, District Chittorgarh)

4. Madhu Lata Kaushik D/o Mahendra Kumar Kaushik, Aged About 52 Years, R/o A-75, Kapasan Road, Zinc Nagar, Chittorgarh (Posted At Gsss Pavali, Block Rashmi, District Chittorgarh)

5. Kailash Chandra Jat S/o Girdhari Lal Jat, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Banakiya Khurd, Singhpur, District Chittorgarh (Posted At Gsss Pavali, Block Rashmi, District Chittorgarh)

6. Himmat Singh Rathore S/o Narayan Singh Rathore, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Rawala, Jamota, District Ajmer (Posted At Gsss Sihana, Block Rashmi, District Chittorgarh)

7. Shyam Lal Teli S/o Nanu Ram Teli, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Ward No.8, Chatawati, Chittorgarh. (Posted At Gsss Turkiya Khurd, Block Kapasan, District Chittorgarh)

8. Shyam Lal Suthar S/o Hameer Ji Suthar, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Mandpiya, Block Gangrar, District Chittorgarh (Posted At Gups Dhuwaliya, Block Gangrar, District Chittorgarh)

9. Varun Kumar S/o Satya Pal Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Backside Hospital, Gangrar Station, Gangrar, District Chittorgarh (Posted At Gsss Khar Khanda, Block Gangrar, District Chittorgarh)

10. Satya Narayan Upadhyaya S/o Banshi Lal Upadhyaya, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Upadhyaya Mohalla, Dowani, Chittorgarh (Posted At Gsss Kana Kheda, Block

[2023/RJJD/017087] (2 of 6) [CW-7201/2023]

Bhopalsagar, District Chittorgarh)

11. Pushpendra Joshi S/o Hari Vallabh Joshi, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Maheshwari Mohalla, Pahoona, District Chittorgarh (Posted At Gsss Marmi, Block Rashmi, District Chittorgarh)

12. Ashok Kumar Joshi S/o Prem Shanker Joshi, Aged About 51 Years, R/o D-37, Adarsh Colony, Kumbha Nagar, District Chittorgarh (Posted At Gups Mishro Ki Pipli, Block And District Chittorgarh)

13. Yugal Kishor Sharma S/o Amba Lal Sharma, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Jato Ka Mohalla, Kannoj, Chittrogarh (Posted At Gsss Agoriya, Block Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh)

14. Jamana Lal Heda S/o Jagdish Chandra Heda, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 41 Khamesra Nagar, Near Railway Colony, Chittorgarh (Posted At Gsss Adana, Block Rashmi, District Chittorgarh)

15. Babu Lal Chamar S/o Narayan Lal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Naiyo Ka Mohalla, Babarana, District Chittorgarh (Posted At Gps Purbiya Khera (Akola), Block Bhopalsagar, District Chittorgarh)

16. Yashwant Kumar Joshi S/o Banshi Lal Joshi, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 404, Mahajano Ka Mohalla, Dhamana, District Chittorgarh. (Posted At Gups Dhobi Khera, Block Kapasan, District Chittorgarh)

17. Narayan Singh Pareek S/o Brij Mohan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Kumbha Nagar, Chittorgarh (Posted At Gsss Ranthuriya, Block Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh)

18. Hanjsraj Teli S/o Shanker Lal Teli, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Rashmi, Tehsil Rashmi, District Chittorgarh(Posted At Ggups Marmi, Block Rashmi, District Chittorgarh)

19. Ajanta Purohit D/o Satya Narayan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 10-A-15, Rc Vyas Colony, Bhilwara. (Posted At Gsss Jajaro Ka Khera, Block Gangrar, District Chittorgarh)

20. Babita Singhvi D/o Jivan Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 114, Jamana Vihar, Bhilwara. (Posted At Gsss Lasadiya Kalan, Block Rashmi, District Chittorgarh)

21. Jagdish Chandra Bairwa S/o Pyar Chand Bairwa, Aged

[2023/RJJD/017087] (3 of 6) [CW-7201/2023]

About 50 Years, R/o Bairwa Mohalla, Nevariya, Tehsil Rashmi, District Chittorgarh (Posted At Gsss Rewara, Block Rashmi, District Chittorgarh)

22. Ratan Lal Khatik S/o Sohan Lal Khatik, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Narela, District Chittorgarh (Posted At Gps Kanthariya Chouhano Ka , Block And District Chittorgarh)

23. Arjun Singh Chouhan S/o Kesar Singh Chouhan, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Badi Sadri Road, Goutam Nagar, Doongla, District Chittorgarh (Posted At Gsss Bhatoli Bagriyan, Block Doongla, District Chittorgarh)

24. Prabha Sharma D/o Shyam Sunder Sharma, Aged About 47 Years, R/o C-4, Meera Nagar, Chittorgarh.(Posted At Gsss Senthi, Block And District Chittorgarh)

25. Dinesh Paliwal S/o Ganesh Lal Purohit, Aged About 54 Years, R/o 12, Sector -4, Akashwani, Road, Gandhinagar, Chittorgarh (Posted At Gsss Badodiya, Block And District Chittorgarh)

26. Satya Narayan Sharma S/o Dev Krishan, Aged About 56 Years, R/o 115-C, Pratapnagar, Chittorgarh. (Posted At Gsss Kankarawa, Block Bhopalsagar, District Chittorgarh)

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, School Education, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

4. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

5. The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur Division, Udaipur.

6. The District Education Officer, Secondary, Chittorgarh

7. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary, Chittorgarh

8. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Hanuman Singh Choudhary


 [2023/RJJD/017087]                     (4 of 6)                          [CW-7201/2023]


For Respondent(s)           :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

24/05/2023

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that for

the same recruitment, similarly situated petitioner 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

petitioner 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

& 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

[2023/RJJD/017087] (5 of 6) [CW-7201/2023]

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 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.

[2023/RJJD/017087] (6 of 6) [CW-7201/2023]

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.

Ordered accordingly."

In view of the submissions made, the present writ petition

filed by the petitioners is also disposed of in light of order passed

in the case of Om Prakash (supra).

The order has been passed based on the submissions made

in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the

veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,

the averments made therein are found to be correct, the

petitioners would be entitled to the relief.