Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prahlad Singh Shaktawat vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 17 April, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:18773]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6542/2025
Prahlad Singh Shaktawat S/o Shri Sardar Singh Shaktawat, Aged
About 46 Years, R/o Village Dhalawad, Mahoora, District
Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director (Secondary Education), Bikaner.
3. The Director (Primary Education), Bikaner.
4. The District Education Officer (Secondary), Udaipur.
5. The District Education Officer (Secondary), Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh Choudhary
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
17/04/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy in question rests covered by the judgment passed by
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur in Suman Bai & Anr.
Vs.State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381. He
submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the respondents
are directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in light
of the aforesaid judgment.
2. In Suman Bai's case (supra), it was observed and held as
under:
"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
[2025:RJ-JD:18773] (2 of 3) [CW-6542/2025]
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
[2025:RJ-JD:18773] (3 of 3) [CW-6542/2025]
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."
3. In view of the submission made, the present writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the competent
authority/respondents to decide the representation of the
petitioner if filed within a period of fifteen days from now. The
representation be decided within a period of six weeks thereafter
in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made in
the case of Suman Bai (supra).
4. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the
representation has been issued only with a view to ensure
expeditious redressal of petitioner's grievance. The same may not
be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a
particular manner.
5. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
1-manila/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
