Shiwali Madan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:51487)
2025 Latest Caselaw 16200 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 16200 Raj
Judgement Date : 27 November, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Shiwali Madan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:51487) on 27 November, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:51487]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22594/2025

Shiwali Madan D/o Moolchand Madan, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Near Jawahar School, Ward No. 22, Tehsil Bhinasar, District
Bikaner.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
         Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of
         Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Ms. Anu Choudhary
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. D.S. Sodha for
                                Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, Govt. Counsel



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

27/11/2025

1. Heard the present writ petition for final disposal.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the

action of the respondents in treating the petitioner as junior to

persons who are less meritorious than the petitioner in the same

recruitment and selection.

3. This Court, in the case of Suman Bai & Anr. vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors., 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381, wherein it has

been held that:

"6. 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

(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 05:13:45 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51487] (2 of 4) [CW-22594/2025]

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 beplaced 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.

7. 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

(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 05:13:45 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51487] (3 of 4) [CW-22594/2025]

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.

8. 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."

4. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the seniority of

candidates in the same selection of direct recruitment shall be

based on the merit obtained in the selection process only dehors

the merit, they cannot fix the seniority whereby a junior can be

placed over a person who is more meritorious than the junior. The

established principle relating to the fixation of seniority among

direct recruitment in the same selection process shall be based on

merit only.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that while fixing the

seniority, the merit of the selection list has not been followed. If

that is so, the respondents are required to redraw a fresh list by