Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manoj Kumar Derashri vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:21440) on 5 May, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:21440]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8501/2025
1. Manoj Kumar Derashri S/o Shri Shyam Sundar Derashri,
Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Mohto Ka Chowk,
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
2. Mahesh Kumar Harsh S/o Late Shri Chand Ratan Harsh,
Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Harsho Ka Chowk,
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical And
Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director (Mon-Gazetted), Medical, Health Services
And Family Welfare Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Superintendent, Pbm Hospital, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pramendra Bohra.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanuj Jain for
Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
05/05/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
controversy in question rests covered by the judgment passed by
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.21214/2017; Om Prakash & Ors. & Vs. The
State of Rajasthan & Ors. (decided on 21.11.2017).
2. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to
refute the above submission. However, he submits that if the
[2025:RJ-JD:21440] (2 of 4) [CW-8501/2025]
petitioners file a representation, the respondent-authorities would
definitely consider and decide the same in accordance with the
case of Om Prakash (supra) and if they are found to be covered
by the said judgment, appropriate relief would be granted to
them.
3. In the case of Om Prakash (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
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)
[2025:RJ-JD:21440] (3 of 4) [CW-8501/2025]
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 been titled 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 judicataor 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."
4. In view of the submission made, the present writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the competent
[2025:RJ-JD:21440] (4 of 4) [CW-8501/2025]
authority/respondents to decide the representation of the
petitioners 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 and keeping in view the observations made
in the case of Om Prakash (supra).
3. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the
representation has been issued only with a view to ensure
expeditious redressal of petitioners' grievance.
4. 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.
5. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
296-KashishS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
