Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mukesh Kumar Choudhary vs Goverdhan Kumar ... on 6 November, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:47655-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 108/2025
1. Virender Singh Rathore S/o Sh. Sumer Singh, Aged About
37 Years, R/o Wards No. 04, 8 Stb, Sukhchenpura,
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
2. Santosh Kumar Meena S/o Sh. Hari Kishan Meena, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o House No. 35, Village Shahibabad,
Tehsil Reni, Shahibabad, Alwar, Rajasthan
3. Bacchu Singh Meena S/o Sh. Hareti Lal Meena, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Bamanwas, Sawaimadhopur,
Rajasthan.
4. Jagdish Singh S/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Ward No. 05, 58 Gb Ramsinghpura,
Ganganagar, Anoopgarh, Rajasthan
5. Sapna W/o Sh. Somnath, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
Arayan, 32-F Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
6. Ashish Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ramhet Meena, Aged About
31 Years, R/o Matashya Bhawan, Block -A, Moti Nagar,
Bandikui, Dausa Rajasthan.
7. Laxmi Kumari Meena, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Chandrawas Kolana, Dausa, Rajasthan.
8. Vikram Singh S/o Virendra Singh, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o 12 Wards No. 07, 8 Apd- B Post O, Bhatiwala Tehsil
Shri Vijaynagar, Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
9. Sudarshan Mundra S/o Suresh Kumar Mundra, Aged
About 38 Years, R/o Takiyon Ki Badli Ke Pass, Mundra
Pole, Bhindranwale, Sarangpura, Udaipur.
10. Kalpana Chowdhary D/o Malum Singh, Aged About 53
Years, R/o Near Shrinath Temple, Ward No. 46 Girwa,
Udaipur.
11. Dinesh Kumar Parmar S/o Amra Parmar, Aged About 49
Years, R/o Dhelana, Udaipur.
12. Manohar Sen, Aged About 45 Years, R/o House No. 52,
Ratneshwar Colony Gadh Margarita, Shobhagpura,
Udaipur.
13. Nadira Bano D/o Mohd. Arif Sheikh, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o 163, Chitrakoot Nagar Dattatrey Ashram, Near
Savina, Petrol Pump, Girwa, Udaipur.
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 11:25:50 AM)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 08:46:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47655-DB] (2 of 7) [WRW-108/2025]
14. Suman Sharma D/o Birdi Chand Sharma, Aged About 38
Years, R/o 158-A Vardhaman Nagar A, Behind 36 Shop,
Jaipur.
15. Shakuntala Devpura W/o Snajay Devpura, Aged About 49
Years, R/o 109, Roop Nagar, Hiranmagri, Sector-3, Manwa
Khera Rural, Udaipur.
16. Rasila Kumari Gamar D/o Tejmal Gamar, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Village- Dharaana, Tehsil Jhadol, Dharawan,
Udaipur.
17. Gajendra Singh Rathore S/o Purab Singh Rathore, Aged
About 41 Years, R/o 10 Neemach Kheda Talai, Dewali
Girwa Udaipur.
18. Yogesh Prajapat S/o Jagdish Chandra Prajapat, Aged
About 41 Years, R/o Suthraro Ka Mohalla, Teetardi,
Titardi, Udaipur.
19. Yogita Sharma W/o Bal Mukund Sharma, Aged About 40
Years, R/o 118 Vinayaka Nagar, Sector 2, Saweena
(Rural), Udaipur.
20. Kanhaiya Lal Paliwal S/o Nand Lal Paliwal, Aged About 48
Years, R/o Siyalpura, Lakhwali, Udaipur.
21. Laxika Sharma W/o Anil Sharma, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Near Punjabi Bagh, 70 Arihant Nagar, Kalka Mata
Road, Udaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Goverdhan Kumar S/o Sh. Masaru Ram, R/o Village
Mandwa, Udaipur Rajasthan.
2. Ladu Ram Garasiya S/o Kesha Ram Garasiya, R/o Village
Beran, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Bhanwar Lal S/o Kanhaiya Lal, R/o Village Samili, Udaipur
Rajasthan.
4. Hansraj Gamar S/o Sh. Ram Lal, R/o Village Goriya,
Udaipur Rajasthan.
5. Vinod Kumar Gamet S/o Sh. Shankar Lal Gameti, R/o
Ward No. 10, Village Post Talaiya, P.s. Bichhiwra,
Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
6. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Department,
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 11:25:50 AM)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 08:46:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47655-DB] (3 of 7) [WRW-108/2025]
Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur
7. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
8. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kotra,
Udaipur Rajasthan
9. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samit, Nyaganv,
Udaipur Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 105/2025
1. Mukesh Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Nand Lal Choudhary,
Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Alimpura, Post
Khasipura, Tehsil Peeplu Tonk Rajasthan.
2. Kailash Chandra Sharma S/o Sh. Govind Narayan
Sharma, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Haripura, Peeplu, Tonk
Rajasthan.
3. Surendra Choudhary Father/o Shanker Lal Choudhary,
Aged About 40 Years, R/o Niwai, Behind Gandhi Park,
Niwai, Rajasthan.
4. Lokesh Kumar Verma S/o Ram Niwas Verma, Aged About
42 Years, R/o Shyama Prasad, Mukarji Nagar, 80 Feet
Road, Niwai Rajasthan
5. Ganga Meena D/o Shri Chitarmal Meena, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Deendayal Colony, Niwai, Rajasthan.
6. Mahaveer Prasad Nagar S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Nagar,
Aged About 47 Years, R/o Master Nagar, Village
Ratanpura, Tirthiya, Tonk Rajasthan.
7. Anusuya Kanwar W/o Sh. Bahadur Singh, Aged About 41
Years, R/o Near Roadway Bus Stand, Ward No. 20 Dhakad
Colony, Rodarsingh, Tonk Rajasthan.
8. Babli Laddha, Aged About 52 Years, R/o B-2 Gokul Vihar,
Bhilwara Rajasthan 311001.
9. Sudarshan Mundra S/o Suresh Kumar Mundra, Aged
About 38 Years, R/o Takiyon Ki Badli Ke Pass, Mundra
Pole, Bhindranwale, Sarangpura, Udaipur
10. Kalpana Chowdhary D/o Malum Singh, Aged About 53
Years, R/o Near Shrinath Temple, Ward No. 46 Girwa,
Udaipur
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 11:25:50 AM)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 08:46:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47655-DB] (4 of 7) [WRW-108/2025]
11. Dinesh Kumar Parmar S/o Amra Parmar, Aged About 49
Years, R/o Dhelana, Udaipur
12. Manohar Sen, Aged About 45 Years, R/o House No. 52,
Ratneshwar Colony Gadh Margarita, Shobhagpura,
Udaipur.
13. Nadira Bano D/o Mohd. Arif Sheikh, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o 163, Chitrakoot Nagar Dattatrey Ashram, Near
Savina, Petrol Pump, Girwa, Udaipur
14. Suman Sharma D/o Birdi Chand Sharma, Aged About 38
Years, R/o 158-A Vardhaman Nagar A, Behind 36 Shop,
Jaipur.
15. Shakuntala Devpura W/o Snajay Devpura, Aged About 49
Years, R/o 109, Roop Nagar, Hiranmagri, Sector-3, Manwa
Khera Rural, Udaipur.
16. Rasila Kumari Gamar D/o Tejmal Gamar, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Village- Dharaana, Tehsil Jhadol, Dharawan,
Udaipur.
17. Gajendra Singh Rathore S/o Purab Singh Rathore, Aged
About 41 Years, R/o 10 Neemach Kheda Talai, Dewali
Girwa Udaipur
18. Yogesh Prajapat S/o Jagdish Chandra Prajapat, Aged
About 41 Years, R/o Suthraro Ka Mohalla, Teetardi,
Titardi, Udaipur.
19. Yogita Sharma W/o Bal Mukund Sharma, Aged About 40
Years, R/o 118 Vinayaka Nagar, Sector 2, Saweena
(Rural), Udaipur.
20. Kanhaiya Lal Paliwal S/o Nand Lal Paliwal, Aged About 48
Years, R/o Siyalpura, Lakhwali, Udaipur.
21. Laxika Sharma W/o Anil Sharma, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Near Punjabi Bagh, 70 Arihant Nagar, Kalka Mata
Road, Udaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Goverdhan Kumar S/o Masaru Ram, R/o Village Mandwa,
Udaipur Rajasthan.
2. Ladu Ram Garasiya S/o Kesha Ram Garasiya, R/o Village
Beran, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Bhanwar Lal S/o Kanhaiya Lal, R/o Village Samili, Udaipur
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 11:25:50 AM)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2025 at 08:46:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47655-DB] (5 of 7) [WRW-108/2025]
Rajasthan.
4. Hansraj Gamar S/o Ram Lal, R/o Village Goriya, Udaipur
Rajasthan.
5. Vinod Kumar Gamet S/o Shankar Lal Gameti, R/o Ward
No. 10, Village Post Talaiya, P.s. Bichhiwra, Dungarpur,
Rajasthan.
6. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
7. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Udaipur, Rajasthan
8. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kotra,
Udaipur Rajasthan
9. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samit, Nyaganv,
Udaipur Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Adwaita Sharma.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
ORDER
06/11/2025
1. This review petition has been filed under Rule 64 of
Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 read with Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking review / reconsideration /
modification of judgment dated 04.04.2025 passed in D.B. Special
Appeal Writ No.516/2025, wherein this Court adjudicated upon the
issue pertaining to framing/re-framing of the seniority list for
promotion from the post of LDC to UDC.
2. The recruitment process for the post of LDC was conducted
in the year 2013, when the successful candidates were declared
by the concerned District Establishment Committee (hereinafter
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 11:25:50 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47655-DB] (6 of 7) [WRW-108/2025]
referred to as "the DEC") on 25.06.2013 for filling up the
vacancies in the post of LDC pursuant to the said recruitment and
necessary appointment orders were thereafter, issued to the
respective Zila Parishads and Panchayat Samitis. The proposition
under consideration in the impugned order, of which review is
being sought, pertains to the inter se seniority amongst the
candidates.
3. Ms. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
applicants has empathetically tried to derive a connotation out of
the legislative provisions of Section 285 of the Rajasthan
Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules
of 1996'), which determines the seniority amongst employees in
service.
3.1 Learned counsel further submits that Rule 285 of the Rules
of 1996 considers the date of confirmation in the lowest grade and
the date of regular selection for promotion for the purpose of
computing the seniority.
3.2 Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to
certain appointment orders bearing slightly different dates, and
therefore, she submits that the proviso will not operate because of
proviso to Rule 285 of the Rules of 1996 is for the appointment to
the post on same grade and category under the same orders and
then only, it will operate as per merit, which was the initial criteria
as the list was prepared by the DEC.
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 11:25:50 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47655-DB] (7 of 7) [WRW-108/2025]
3.3 Learned counsel also submits that by virtue of the operation
of the proviso, the respondent-State is applying only the proviso
part, thereby rendering the core rule itself itiose and ineffective.
3.4 Learned counsel further contends that such anomaly
warrants a review of the matter and although the applicants were
not original parties to the litigation, they are adversely affected by
the outcome thereof.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants at length
and under the narrow parameters of the jurisdiction of review, we
do not find any cogent reason to revisit the judgment as some of
the points which have taken by counsel may have been open for
discussion if it was an appellate jurisdiction, but in the narrow
compass of review jurisdiction, this Court does not find any reason
to revisit its well-considered order. The learned Single Bench as
well as the Division Bench have applied the criteria of merit at the
stage of initial recruitment, which was common in nature, arising
out of the same advertisement and merit was, thus, outcome of
proviso (i) of the Rule of 285 of the Rules of 1996, which is very
fair and justiciable criteria and application of the same cannot be
overturned and interfered with on any count.
5. Consequently, the review petitions are dismissed. All pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
1-2 Zeeshan
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 11:25:50 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
