Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prabhu Lal Angaree vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 21 April, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:19149]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7990/2025
1. Prabhu Lal Angaree S/o Naniya Angaree, Aged About 50
Years, Village And Post Ward No. 07, Dalyana, Khadagda,
Dist. Dungarpur. (Raj.).
2. Banshi Lal Roat S/o Roopaji Roat, Aged About 48 Years,
Village And Post Ward No. 03, Mohlla Bichka Fala Mukam
Ambara, Dist. Dungarpur (Raj.).
3. Tulsiram Parmar S/o Mogji Parmar, Aged About 55 Years,
Village And Post Oda Fala, Post Kolkhanda Pal Kol Khanda,
Punali, Dist. Dungarpur. (Raj.).
4. Laxman Lal Bariya S/o Thavara Bariya, Aged About 54
Years, Village And Post Oberi, Dist. Dungarpur. (Raj.).
5. Lalita Nanema W/o Hariram Damor, Aged About 45 Years,
Village And Post Ward No.04, Damor Fala, Vasela,
Daiyana, Dist. Dungarpur. (Raj.).
6. Narayan Lal Parmar S/o Shankar Lal Parmar, Aged About
52 Years, Village And Post Mu-Lendiya Fala, Post
Kolkhanda Pal Kol Khanda, Punali, Dist. Dungarpur. (Raj.).
7. Nanu Ram S/o Mogji Adivasi, Aged About 55 Years,
Village And Post Vivekanand, Basti, Post Khadagada, Dist.
Dungarpur. (Raj.).
8. Karilal Damor S/o Dhanji Damor, Aged About 50 Years,
Village And Post Piyola, Panchkhudi, Dist. Dungarpur.
(Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Rural And Panchayati Raj, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Udaipur
6. District Education Officer (Secondary Education), Udaipur.
(Downloaded on 21/04/2025 at 09:50:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19149] (2 of 5) [CW-7990/2025]
7. District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Rajsamand.
8. District Education Officer (Secondary Education),
Rajsamand.
9. District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Chittorgarh.
10. District Education Officer (Secondary Education),
Chittorgarh.
11. District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Pali.
12. District Education Officer (Secondary Education), Pali.
13. District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Dungarpur.
14. District Education Officer (Secondary Education),
Dungarpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bheru Lal Jat
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
21/04/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
controversy in question rests covered by a judgment passed by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur in Om Prakash &
Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.21214/2017 (decided on 21.11.2017). He submits that the
petitioners would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to
decide the representation(s) of the petitioners in light of the
aforesaid judgment.
2. In Om Prakash's case (supra), it was observed and held as
under:
"Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset,
submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ
[2025:RJ-JD:19149] (3 of 5) [CW-7990/2025]
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
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 6 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
that the judgment of the learned Single Judge
[2025:RJ-JD:19149] (4 of 5) [CW-7990/2025]
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 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."
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(s) of the
petitioners if filed within a period of fifteen days from now. The
[2025:RJ-JD:19149] (5 of 5) [CW-7990/2025]
representation(s) be decided within a period of six weeks
thereafter in accordance with law and keeping in view the
observations made in the case of Om Prakash (supra).
4. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the
representation(s) has been issued only with a view to ensure
expeditious redressal of petitioners' grievance.
5. The order has been passed based on the submissions made
in the petition and by learned counsel for the petitioners before
this Court. 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, appropriate
orders would be passed in favour of the petitioners.
6. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
17-manila/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
