Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Manjula Chauhan vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:38360) on 18 September, 2024

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2024:RJ-JD:38360]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15329/2024

1.       Smt. Manjula Chauhan D/o Shri Bhanwar Singh Chauhan,
         Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Gopal Sadan, New
         Colony, Opposite Purana Hospital, Railway Station Road,
         Nagaur (Raj.).
2.       Hariprasad Sain S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Nai, Aged About 59
         Years, Presently Posted At Office Of Bcmo. Deedwana,
         District Deedwana-Kuchaman, Resident Of Ward No. 15,
         Nagar Palika Road, Losal, Tehsil Dataramgarh, District
         Sikar (Raj.).
3.       Sanjay Sethi S/o Shri Tarachand Sethi, Aged About 57
         Years, Resident Of 23 Eidgah Road, Behind Bsnl Quarters,
         Ajmer (Raj.), Presently Kept Apo, At Directorate, Medical
         And Health Services, Jaipur.
4.       Kishan Lal Tanwar S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Tanwar, Aged
         About 56 Years, Resident Of 1025/6, Shanti Nagar,
         Maulasar Road, Ajmer (Raj.).
5.       Raghuveer Das, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Shakti
         Sagar Marg, Harijan Basti, Gram Kharwa, District Ajmer
         (Raj.).
6.       Ajay Kumar Agarwal S/o Shri Miththan Lal Gupta, Aged
         About 57 Years, Resident Of 16, Vaishno Devi Colony,
         Dayanagar, Beawar, District Beawar (Raj.).
7.       Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Bhanwarlal, Aged About 56 Years,
         Resident Of Plot No. 5, Narayan Nagar, Ward No. 41, Near
         Maharam Tanwar Colony, Masuda Road, Beawar, District
         Banswara (Raj.).
8.       Prem Singh Rawat S/o Shri Bachan Singh Rawat, Aged
         About 59 Years, Resident Of House No. 1395/38, Vigyan
         Nagar, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.).
9.       Laxman Khandelwal S/o Shri Shyam Sundar Gupta, Aged
         About 57 Years, Resident Of Gulab Badi, Pahli Gali,
         Opposite Govt. Dispensary, Ajmer (Raj.).
10.      Sunil Kumar Goyal S/o Shri Ramniwas Goyal, Aged About
         59 Years, Resident Of13/229, Shri Krishna Khunj, Shiv
         Gali, Ghee Mandi, Naya Bazar, Ajmer (Raj.).
11.      Jaichand Jharotiya S/o Shri Buddha Ram, Aged About 56
         Years, Resident Of 75, Regaro Ka Bas, Hoshiyara, Magari,
         Ajmer (Raj.).
12.      Mahendra Singh Panwar S/o Shri Madan Singh Panwar,
         Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of 291/55, Friends Colony,
         Block C, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.).
13.      Smt. Hari Vidhani W/o Shri Naresh Khatwani, Aged About
         55 Years, Resident Of 3-Ga-9, Ramvihar Colony, Near
         Telephone Exchange, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.).
14.      Gyanesh Chandra Baweja S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra
         Baweja, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Piparli Road,

                     (Downloaded on 18/09/2024 at 08:57:34 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JD:38360]                   (2 of 5)                       [CW-15329/2024]


         Jyoti Nagar, Ward No. 40, Sikar (Raj.).
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
         Secretary, Medical And Health Services, Government
         Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel                         And
         Training, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.       Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Govt. Of
         Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
4.       Director (Public Health), Medical And Health Services,
         Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5.       Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical And Health Service,
         Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6.       Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department,
         Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
7.       Chief Medical And Health Officer, Nagaur.
8.       Chief Medical And Health Officer, Ajmer.
9.       Chief Medical And Health Officer, Beawar.
10.      Chief Medical And Health Officer, Kekri.
11.      The Superintendent Jln Hospital, Ajmer.
12.      Chief Medical And Health Officer, Sikar.
13.      Principal Medical Officer, Kekri.
14.      The Assistant Drug Controller, Ajmer.
15.      Chief Medical And Health Officer, Deedwana-Kuchaman.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Jagdish Bhadu for
                                Mr. Yash Pal Khileree.



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

18/09/2024

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

the same recruitment, similarly situated candidates had

approached Jaipur Bench of this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No. 21214/2017 (Om Prakash & Ors. v. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.), and the same has been decided on 21.11.2017

[2024:RJ-JD:38360] (3 of 5) [CW-15329/2024]

granting relief to the petitioners therein in light of judgment in the

case of Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. v. 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).

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 Number3247/2015: 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 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

[2024:RJ-JD:38360] (4 of 5) [CW-15329/2024]

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. In fact, 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 petitioners, therefore, cannot be thrown either barred by res judicata 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."

[2024:RJ-JD:38360] (5 of 5) [CW-15329/2024]

3. In view of the submissions made, the present writ petition

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

passed in the case of Om Prakash (supra).

4. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

5. 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.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J