Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:42038) on 16 October, 2024

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2024:RJ-JD:42038]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17262/2024

1.       Kan Singh S/o Sawai Singh, Aged About 58 Years, Village
         Kalyanpura, Post Ranigaon, Via Choti Khatu, Dist. Did-
         wana- Kuchaman, Raj. At Present Posting Gps Ucheriya
         Charana, Block Makrana, Dist. Didwana- Kuchaman.
2.       Bhanwar Singh S/o Shiv Singh, Aged About 52 Years, Vil-
         lage    Kalwa     Bada,       Tehsil      Makrana,        Dist.   Didwana-
         Kuchaman, Raj. At Present Posting Gps Tako Ki Dhan
         Manana, Block Makrana, Dist. Didwana- Kuchaman.
3.       Chetram Meena S/o Heera Lal Meena, Aged About 54
         Years, Village Goth, Post Amawara, Tehsil Bamanwas,
         Dist. Gangapur City, Raj. At Present Gups Gujaron Ki
         Dhani       Sabalpur,      Block        Makrana,          Dist.   Didwana-
         Kuchaman.
4.       Vikram Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 54 Years,
         Village Morer, Tehsil Makrana, Dist. Didwana- Kuchaman,
         Raj. At Present Gups Rampura Bilu, Block Makrana, Dist.
         Didwana- Kuchaman.
5.       Salim Shah S/o Ahamad Shah, Aged About 58 Years, Vil-
         lage Ganesh Dungri Sirsu Road Nearby Government
         School      Borawad,        Tehsil      Makrana,          Dist.   Didwana-
         Kuchaman, Raj. At Present Gps Nimaninadi Kalwa Bada,
         Block Makrana, Dist. Didwana- Kuchaman.
                                                                      ----Petitioners
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
         Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Ra-
         jasthan.
2.       Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3.       Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
4.       The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Ajmer.
5.       The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
         Nagaur.
6.       The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
         Didwana- Kuchaman.
7.       The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary
         Education, Nagaur.


                       (Downloaded on 17/10/2024 at 09:42:18 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JD:42038]                   (2 of 4)                       [CW-17262/2024]


8.       The Chief Block Education Officer, Makrana, Didwana-
         Kuchaman.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Gajendra Singh
For Respondent(s)         :     -



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

16/10/2024

1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that

for the same recruitment, similarly situated persons had ap-

proached Jaipur Bench of this Court in Om Prakash & Ors. Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.21214/2017, which was decided on 21.11.2017 granting re-

lief to them in the light of judgment dated 01.04.2015 passed by a

Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of

Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.3247/2015 along with other connected

matters and relying upon the adjudication made in the judgment

dated 03.07.2008 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at

Jaipur in the case of Suman Bai & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

& Ors. (SBCWP No.4808/2001) : 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381

and, therefore, the present writ petition may also be decided in

light of judgment passed in the case of Om Prakash (supra).

2. 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:-

[2024:RJ-JD:42038] (3 of 4) [CW-17262/2024]

"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, re- lying 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 appoint- ment on the basis of originally prepared merit list can- not 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 re- quired to be assigned on the basis of placement of can- didates in the select list and when the selection is com- mon and the merit list on the basis of which appoint- ments were made is also common, right to secure ap- pointment 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 cer- tainly 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 con- struction of that judgment in the manner in which the respondents want this Court to do, would negat the

[2024:RJ-JD:42038] (4 of 4) [CW-17262/2024]

mandate of the Rules 20 and 21of the Rajasthan Educa- tion Subordinate Service Rules,1971, which requires se- niority 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 dis- cernible from reading of that judgment. Mere appoint- ment 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 cor- rect and wrong assignment of seniority having arisen subsequent to appointment of the petitioners would ob- viously 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 im- properly constituted.

7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the re- spondents 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 petitioners 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."

3. Taking into account the totality of the facts and

circumstances of the case, the instant writ petition is disposed of

in terms of the order dated 21.11.2017 passed in the case of Om

Prakash (supra).

4. 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.

5. Stay petition also stands disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 256-divya/-