Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Gajendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:37050) on 6 September, 2024

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2024:RJ-JD:37050]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2556/2024

1.       Gajendra Singh S/o Sh. Ganga Singh Rathore, Aged
         About 33 Years, R/o Post Doodasi, Tehsil And Dist. Jalore.
2.       Kiran Bala D/o Sh. Krishan Lal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
         Ward No. 9, Pakka Sarana, 24 Llw-A Pakka Sarana Teh
         Hanumangarh Dist. Hanumangarh.
3.       Krishan Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Ramgopal Sharma, Aged
         About 31 Years, R/o 1605, Kadiwalon Ki Dhani Bassi, Post
         Bassi, Dist Jaipur.
4.       Mamta D/o Sh. Ghanshyam Das, Aged About 33 Years,
         R/o Gali No. 4 Ward No. 13/9, J.b.d. Chouk, Shakti Nagar,
         Purani Abadi, District Sriganganagar.
5.       Mithlesh Sahu D/o Sh. Trilok Chand Sahu, Aged About 32
         Years, R/o Teliyo Ki Gali, Chhota Takhta, Post And District
         Tonk.
6.       Kamala Devi D/o Sh. Surendra Kumar Dhaka, Aged About
         36 Years, R/o Lalgadh Jatan, Ward No. 22, Ganganagar.
7.       Madhuram S/o Sh. Chunnee Lal, Aged About 29 Years,
         R/o Vpo Peshua, Tehsil Pindwara, Dist. Sirohi.
8.       Tripti W/o Sh. Ranveer Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
         66, Kan Ji Nagar, Agra Road, Jaipur.
9.       Rajmohan Paliwal S/o Sh. Jetha Ram Paliwal, Aged About
         30 Years, R/o Village Mokha Khalsa, Tehsil Kolayat,
         District Bikaner.
10.      Suman Rani D/o Sh. Mohar Singh, Aged About 31 Years,
         R/o H. No. 25, Village Dhukada Jama, Dist Sirsa,
         Haryana.
11.      Naresh Kumar Sapela S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Sapela, Aged
         About 34 Years, R/o Ramdeo Nadi, Nirmal Colony,
         Dhundhala, Sojat Road, Dist Pali.
12.      Pankaj Kumar Mahwar S/o Sh. Tarachand Mahawar, Aged
         About 31 Years, R/o Mehandwas Gate, Sanghpura Purani,
         Dist Tonk.
13.      Jyoti D/o Sh. Naresh Kumar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
         Vpo Kishanpura, Uttaradhateh Sangariya ,11 Pt,
         Kishanpura, Dist Hanumangarh.
14.      Aklesh S/o Sh. Hargun, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vpo
         Sherpur, Tehsil Suroth, Dist Karauli.
15.      Ashok Kumar Paliwal S/o Sh. Ganpat Ram Paliwal, Aged
         About 37 Years, R/o Vpo Hod Dulhepura, Tehsil Khandela,
         Dist Sikar.


                     (Downloaded on 11/09/2024 at 08:38:20 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JD:37050]                   (2 of 5)                      [CW-2556/2024]


16.      Rajesh Meena S/o Sh. Ram Gopal Meena, Aged About 39
         Years, R/o Vpo Baghawas Tehki, Renwal, Dist Jaipur.
17.      Rakesh Kumar Bharghav S/o Sh. Kailash Chand, Aged
         About 36 Years, R/o Near Old Post Office, Bharghav
         Colony.
18.      Vandna Kumari W/o Sh. Vijay Sharma, Aged About 35
         Years, R/o Balaria, Jhunjhunu.
19.      Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Parmeshwar Lal, Aged About 37
         Years, R/o Vpo Dulchas, Via Bissau, Dist Jhunjhunu.
20.      Anita D/o Sh. Laxmi Narayan, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
         Seth Ki Bavari, Kala Kuan, Dist Alwar.
21.      Bajrang Lal Sharma S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged
         About 38 Years, R/o Ward No. 07, Naino Ka Bass, Post
         Ridmalsar Purohitan, Dist Bikaner.
22.      Manjeeta D/o Sh. Sumer Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
         Village Kandhran, Post Than Mathui, Tehsil Rajgarh, Dist
         Churu.
23.      Hemant Kumar Tanwar S/o Sh. Sukhadav Prasad, Aged
         About 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 01 Vyas Colony, Nawa City,
         Dist Nagaur.
24.      Vikram Singh S/o Sh. Banshidhar, Aged About 36 Years,
         R/o Ward No. 06, Village Pathana, Post Pacheri Kalan,
         Tehsil Buhana, Dist Jhunjhunu.
25.      Jashpreeti D/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 36 Years,
         R/o Vpo Khanpur Meena, Tehsil Bari, Dist Dholpur.
26.      Jagveer Singh S/o Sh. Indraj, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
         Village Harpaloo Kubdi, Post Binjawas, Tehsil Rajgarh, Dist
         Churu, Rajasthan.
27.      Suman Kumari W/o Sh. Hitesh Bhaskar, Aged About 33
         Years, R/o Birodi Badi, Sikar.
28.      Asha Choudhary W/o Sh. Ramawtar Choudhary, Aged
         About 30 Years, R/o Ramniwaspura, District Tonk.
29.      Govind Ram Balai S/o Sh. Poker Ram, Aged About 41
         Years, R/o Meghwalo Ka Mohalla, Jabdi Nagar, Nagaur.
30.      Pappu Singh S/o Sh. Bheru Singh, Aged About 34 Years,
         Bhatkhedi, Jhalawar.
                                                                 ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
         Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Jaipur,
         Rajasthan.
2.       The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District


                     (Downloaded on 11/09/2024 at 08:38:20 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JD:37050]                    (3 of 5)                        [CW-2556/2024]


         Bikaner, Rajasthan.
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Kailash Choudhary.



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

06/09/2024

1. Defect(s) pointed out by the Registry is overruled.

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

the same recruitment, similarly situated petitioners 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 petitioners 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).

3. 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

[2024:RJ-JD:37050] (4 of 5) [CW-2556/2024]

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 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. 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

[2024:RJ-JD:37050] (5 of 5) [CW-2556/2024]

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."

4. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the petitioners may be

permitted to file a detailed representation before the competent

authorities for redressal of their grievances.

5. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of

with liberty to the petitioners to file a representation to the

competent authorities of the department and the competent

authorities of the department are directed to decide the same

within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such

representation, keeping in mind the law laid down by this Court in

the case of Om Prakash (supra).

6. The order has been passed based on the submissions made