Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Gurnam Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:40237) on 10 September, 2025

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:40237]

   HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
                     S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17470/2025

1.       Gurnam Singh S/o Paramjeet Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
         Village 6H, Post Office Patrora, Tehsil Anupgarh, District
         Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

2.       Kalpana D/o Vijaypal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o H. No. 268,
         Opposite Leading Sr. Secondary School, Ashok Vihar, Azad
         Nagar, Hisar, Haryana.

3.       Bharati D/o Nemi Chand, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village
         Kankadeu Khurd, Post Kankadeu Kala, District Jhunjhunu,
         Rajasthan.

4.       Poonam Arya D/o Rohitash Arya, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 22-
         A, Bankers Colony, Maharana Pratap Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

5.       Pinky Meena D/o Dayali Meena, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Vpo
         Mainapura, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

6.       Kalpana Kumari D/o Murari Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
         Society      Darwaja,      Piloda,     Tehsil     Wazirpur,   Gangapurcity,
         Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.

7.       Dinesh Kumar Dhanwadia S/o Mool Chand Dhanwadia, Aged
         About 38 Years, R/o Ajabpura, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar,
         Rajasthan.

8.       Kailash Chander Raiger S/o Ram Kishan Raiger, Aged About 53
         Years, R/o Vpo Dangarwara, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District
         Jaipur, Rajasthan.

9.       Harshit Mahala S/o Narottam Lal Mahala, Aged About 33
         Years, R/o Vpo Khajpur Naya, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

10.      Manish Gupta S/o Bhagwati Prasad Gupta, Aged About 38
         Years, R/o Vpo Rashidpur, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa,
         Rajasthan.

11.      Rajendra Choudhary S/o Ramkishor Choudhary, Aged About
         35 Years, R/o 84-B, Laxmi Nagar, Kamani Farm Ke Samne,
         Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

12.      Anju D/o Indraj Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 143, Lata
         Nagar, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

13.      Rajesh Kumar Tiwari S/o Sitram Tiwari, Aged About 34 Years,
         R/o H. No. 207, Sitaram Ji Ke Mandir Ka Mohalla, Chakwara,
         Tehsil Phagi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

14.      Nikita Sharma D/o Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 35
         Years, R/o P. No. 158, Radha Govind Colony, Dehar Ke Balaji,


                          (Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 06:27:58 PM)
                         (Downloaded on 10/09/2025 at 09:48:05 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:40237]                    (2 of 4)                        [CW-17470/2025]


         Jaipur, Rajasthan.

15.      Pinky Meena D/o Indraj Meena, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
         Bhilon Ki Dhani, Dhigariya Kapur, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa,
         Rajasthan.

16.      Dayavati Soni D/o Ramniwas Soni, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
         Ward No. 5, Mohalla Malaka Kanwat, Sikar, Rajasthan.

17.      Sunita Devi W/o Sandeep Kumar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
         House No. 92, Aguna Mohalla, Hameerwas Chhota, Churu,
         Rajasthan.

                                                                     ----Petitioners

                                      Versus

1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Women And Child
         Development Department, 2, Jal Path, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur.

2.       The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Govt.
         Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3.       The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

4.       The    Deputy    Director      (Administration),         Integrated   Child
         Development Services, 2, Jal Path, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Ram Pratap Saini
                                 Mr Hansraj Nimbar


                 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

10/09/2025

1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that for the

same recruitment, similarly situated petitioners had approached Jaipur

Bench of this Court in Om Prakash & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21214/2017, which writ petition

has been decided on 21.11.2017 granting relief to the petitioners in

light of judgment in the case of Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. Vs. State

of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3247/2015,

decided on 1.4.2015 and relying upon the adjudication in the case of

(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 06:27:58 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40237] (3 of 4) [CW-17470/2025]

Suman Bai & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009 (1) WLC

(Raj.) 381 and, therefore, the present writ petition may also be

decided in light of judgment in the case of Om Prakash (supra).

2. In the case of Om Prakash (supra), the Bench at Jaipur after

noticing orders in the case of Hemlata Shrimali (supra) and Suman Bai

(supra) observed 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 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

(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 06:27:58 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40237] (4 of 4) [CW-17470/2025]

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 petitioner 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 submissions made, the present writ petition filed by

the petitioner is also disposed of in light of order passed in the case of

Om Prakash (supra).

4. The order has been passed based on the submissions made in the

petition, 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, the petitioners would be entitled to the

relief.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

surabhii/324-

(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 06:27:58 PM)