Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhavik Kumar Vyas vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:42896) on 21 October, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:42896]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17756/2024
1. Bhavik Kumar Vyas S/o Dev Shanker Vyas, Aged About
24 Years, Vpo Mal, Tehsil Sabla, Dist. Dungarpur, Raj. At
Present Posting Gps Sadamanpur, Block Lasadiya, Dist.
Udaipur.
2. Manoj Kumar Gurjar S/o Magan Singh Gurjar, Aged About
30 Years, Village Basra, Post Sodala, Tehsil Baswa, Dist.
Dausa, Rajasthan. At Present Posting Gups Karnipura
Nosar, Block Baytu, Dist. Barmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
District Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Shekhawat
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
21/10/2024
1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that for
the same recruitment, similarly situated persons had approached
Jaipur Bench of this Court in Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21214/2017,
[2024:RJ-JD:42896] (2 of 4) [CW-17756/2024]
which was decided on 21.11.2017 granting relief 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:-
"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
[2024:RJ-JD:42896] (3 of 4) [CW-17756/2024]
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 21of 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."
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."
[2024:RJ-JD:42896] (4 of 4) [CW-17756/2024]
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
197-Samvedana/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
