[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr. Dhirender vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 4 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:6491]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4126/2025
Dr. Gemra Ram Parihar S/o Shri Taga Ram Ji, Aged About 55
Years, R/o Bungalow No. III-A/1, Sector - 1, University Staff
Quarters, Residency Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur Through Its Registrar.
2. Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur.
3. Dr. Dhirender S/o Shri R. C. Choudhary, Aged About 56
Years, R/o 43, A/3, PWD Colony, Near Ram Mandir,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 202822/2024
Dr. Dhirender S/o R C Choudhary, Aged About 56 Years, R/o 43,
A/3, PWD Colony, Near Ram Mandir, Jodhpur-342001, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur Through Its
Registrar, Residency Road, Jodhpur.
3. Dr. Gemra Ram Parihar S/o Shri Taga Ram Ji, Aged About
54 Years, R/o - Bungalow No. III-A/1, Sctor-1, University
Staff Quarters, Residency Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Dungawat
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Kshamendra Mathur
Ms. Adwaita Sharma, through V.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
04/02/2026
1. On the request and with the consent of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of both the parties, the matter is taken up for
final disposal.
2. By this common order, both the writ petitions are disposed
of.
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 06:24:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6491] (2 of 10) [CW-4126/2025]
3. The writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20282/2024
was filed by Dr. Dhirender challenging the appointment order
dated 26.02.2025, whereby Dr. Gemra Ram Parihar was appointed
as Head of the Department of Zoology in the Jai Narayan Vyas
University, and the writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.4126/2025 was filed by Dr. Gemra Ram Parihar challenging the
order dated 31.01.2025, whereby Dr. Dhirender was appointed as
Head of the Department of Zoology without revoking the order of
appointment of Dr. Gemra Ram Parihar and without giving any
notice to him.
4. For convenience, Dr. Gemra Ram Parihar is referred to as
petitioner and Dr. Dhirender is referred to as private respondent,
and the University is referred to as the respondent.
5. The facts disclosed that the petitioner was appointed by
direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor by the initial
appointment order dated 24.07.2008, and prior to his
appointment, he was a Lecturer in Government college in the
cadre post. The private respondent was working as Assistant
Professor with the respondent on an ad-hoc basis prior to
regularization of his services. The petitioner underwent the
selection process before regularization and consequently, he was
appointed on 24.07.2008. Though the joining time is different for
both, the facts disclosed that the private respondent joined earlier
in time and the petitioner joined later in time on the post of
Assistant Professor. Admittedly, there was no seniority list, and it
appears that the appointment of the private respondent was given
w.e.f. the date of appointment; however, the private respondent
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 06:24:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6491] (3 of 10) [CW-4126/2025]
moved a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.78/2008.
The writ petitioner herein i.e. Dr. Gemra Ram Parihar, was not a
party to the said writ petition (i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.78/2008), and the said writ petition was partly allowed,
directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners'
past service for grant of benefits of the Career Advancement
Scheme (CAS) by counting their length of service from the date of
initial appointment. Meanwhile, it appears that there was a
promotion undertaking for the post of Associate Professor and the
said promotion requires a minimum experience of eight years in
the cadre of Assistant Professor. By virtue of the directions given
in writ petition No.78/2008, whereunder the petitioner's (i.e.
private respondent herein) past service was ordered to be counted
for the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), the petitioner's (i.e.
private respondent herein) past service as an ad-hoc employee
was counted to meet the eligibility criteria of Associate Professor;
thereby, he was made eligible and was considered for promotion
on 14.08.2008. The writ petitioner was promoted to the post of
Associate Professor on 16.09.2014. Subsequently, further
promotion was given to both the parties to the post of Professor.
The writ petitioner was promoted on 16.09.2017, whereas the
private respondent was promoted on 11.07.2016, which is prior to
the writ petitioner.
6. Referring to Section 8(1)(c) of the Statute of University
which is part of the Schedule made under Section 22 of the Jai
Narayan Vyas University Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act of 1962"), it is contended that promotion to the post of Head
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 06:24:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6491] (4 of 10) [CW-4126/2025]
of the Department is subject to rotation by seniority. The entire
dispute revolves around the promotion to the post of Head of the
Department of Zoology.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that the petitioner's appointment to the post of Assistant
Professor is by direct recruitment, whereas the private
respondent's appointment to the post of Assistant Professor is by
regularizing of an ad hoc appointment and appointments were
given to the petitioner as well as the private respondent on the
same date. Though there are different dates of joining, the
petitioner shall be given seniority prefrence over private
respondent when the inter se seniority is drawn between the
petitioner and the private respondent.
8. It is also his contention that the private respondent filed a
writ petition seeking counting of past service for the purpose of
the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), which was allowed, and
the same was allowed behind the back of the petitioner; therefore,
his grievance is that private respondent's promotion to the post of
Associate Professor and Professor which were given prior to the
petitioner has to be ignored and the petitioner shall be treated as
senior by counting the past service for the purpose of promotion
to the post of Head of the Department.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private
respondent contends that as per the seniority existing in the cadre
of Professor, the private respondent is senior to the petitioner, and
he is also senior in the cadre of Assistant/Associate Professor. The
grievance ventilated by the petitioner with regard to seniority in
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 06:24:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6491] (5 of 10) [CW-4126/2025]
the cadre of Assistant Professor cannot be considered at this
stage, as such issue was never raised in the present writ petition
and previously as well.
10. It is also his submission that earlier the appointment was
given to the petitioner treating him as senior, ignoring the
seniority in the cadre of Professor, the same was challenged and
the said writ petition was pending. While such writ petition was
pending, the respondents tried to rectify the mistake by passing
the fresh order appointing the private respondent as Head of the
Department. According to him, the appointment of the private
respondent was made by rectifying the order of appointment of
the petitioner for the post of Head of the Department. There was
no need to give any opportunity of hearing and no need to revoke
the order of appointment of the petitioner.
11. Having gone through the facts and contentions projected by
learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties, the
undisputed facts are that both the petitioner and the private
respondent were appointed on the same date. The petitioner was
appointed by direct recruitment and he was previously occupying
the post of Lecturer in Government-run colleges. The private
respondent was initially appointed on an ad-hoc basis to the post
of Assistant Professor, and such appointment was against the
existing cadre post, and his services were regularized and he was
appointed on the same date on which the petitioner was
appointed. This means that the petitioner's appointment and the
private respondent's appointment are on the same date.
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 06:24:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6491] (6 of 10) [CW-4126/2025]
12. A close scrutiny of the appointment order of the private
respondent shows that though his services were regularized, his
appointment was given effect from the date of appointment and
not with retrospective effect. The petitioner was also appointed on
the same date. For fixation of inter se seniority among the
petitioner and the private respondent, the rules are silent. The
regularization of the private respondent resulted in lack of testing
the merit between the private respondent and the petitioner.
13. The contention advanced by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent-University is that the person appointed
by direct recruitment has to be treated as senior over the person
regularized when the appointments are on the same date. This
argument is not supported by any statutory backing.
14. The private respondent filed the writ petition being S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.78/2008 after his appointment by seeking
regularizing his past services and to count his seniority in the ad-
hoc post for the purpose of the Career Advancement Scheme
(CAS). In the said writ petition, the writ petitioner was not made a
party so that the consequences of such an order could have been
resisted by him.
15. The private respondent, basing on the directions of this
Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.78/2008, had applied for the
post of Associate Professor, which post requires a minimum
working experience of eight years in the cadre of Assistant
Professor. The promotion is the Career Advancement Scheme
(CAS). Since the direction enabled the private respondent to count
the past service for the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), the
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 06:24:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6491] (7 of 10) [CW-4126/2025]
petitioner availed the benefits of the Career Advancement Scheme
(CAS) and made himself eligible. He was also promoted to the
post of Associate Professor on 14.08.2008, though his services
were regularized w.e.f. 24.07.2008, which is within a short span of
time.
16. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Associate
Professor on 16.09.2014. This means that the private respondent
had gained seniority of six years in the cadre of Associate
Professor, as he was promoted to the said post in the year 2008
itself. Similarly, the private respondent was again promoted to the
post of Professor on 11.07.2016, whereas the writ petitioner was
promoted on 16.09.2017. These two orders of promotion were
never under challenge at the instance of the affected parties,
including the petitioner. For the promotion to the post of Head of
the Department, Section 8(1)(c) of the Statute of University which
is part of the Schedule made under Section 22 of the Jai Narayan
Vyas University Act, 1962 prescribes the procedure. The said
provision reads as follows:
"8. (1) (a) xxxxxxxxxxxx
(b) xxxxxxxxxxxx
(c) Each Department shall have a Head who shall be
appointed in the following order of preference:
(1) (i) Professor in the subject by rotation by seniority.
If a Professor who is Head of the Department under
clause (1)(i) above goes on leave without pay/EOL,
deputation or he goes on any type of leave for a period
of not less than 1 month, the next senior most
professor shall be appointed Head of the Department
for such period as the person appointed under clause
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 06:24:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6491] (8 of 10) [CW-4126/2025]
1(i) is on leave. This period shall not count towards the
term.
(ii) In case there is no Professor or all Professors are on
leave, Readers by rotation by seniority.
If a Reader who is Head of Department under clause
1(ii) above goes on leave without pay/EOL, deputation
or he goes on any type of leave for a period of not less
than 1 month, the next senior most Reader shall be
appointed Head of the Department for such period as
the person appointed under clause 1(ii) is on leave.
This period shall not count towards the term.
(iii) In case there is no Professor or Reader or all
Professors and Readers are on leave, Lecturers by
rotation by seniority.
If a Lecturer who is Head of the Department under
clause 1(iii) above goes on leave without pay/EOL,
deputation or he goes on any type of leave for a period
of not less than 1 month, the next senior-most Lecturer
shall be appointed Head of the Department for such
period as the persons appointed under clause 1(iii) is
on leave. This period shall not count towards the term."
17. A reading of the provision referred to hereinabove makes it
clear that appointment by promotion to the post of Head of the
Department in the relevant subject is by rotation by seniority. The
note-sheet dated 20.02.2004 indicates that the private respondent
was treated as senior, and the names of senior Professors are also
detailed. The available seniors were: Dr. Vimla Shearon
(Professor), Dr. Dhirender (Professor) and Dr. Gemra Ram Parihar
(Professor). Dr. Vimla Shearon was ignored since she had already
enjoyed the Headship by virtue of her seniority in the cadre of
Professor. The next senior is the private respondent, and
thereafter, the writ petitioner.
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 06:24:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6491] (9 of 10) [CW-4126/2025]
18. By going through the procedure under Section 8(1)(c) of the
Act of 1962, the private respondent, who was shown as senior,
was required to be considered for appointment, as is noted under
the note-sheet which was prepared prior to the appointment to
the post of Head of the Department. The appointment of petitioner
appears to be not in terms of the note-sheet and Section 8(1)(c)
of the Act of 1962. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner
dated 26.02.2025 in the writ petition (i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.20282/2024) is required to be set aside by allowing the writ
petition.
19. The appointment of the private respondent by the impugned
order dated 30.01.2025 is also required to be interfered with on
the sole ground that before the fresh appointment order was
passed in favour of the private respondent, the appointment of the
petitioner as Head of the Department was not revoked. The said
order was still in operation. Further, two appointment orders
cannot operate in respect of a single post, resulting in confusion.
Apart from this, before the earlier order of appointment of the
private respondent was passed, the petitioner was not heard. It is
a clear violation of the principles of natural justice; therefore, the
appointment of the private respondent as Head of the Department
by the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 is required to be set
aside, and consequently, the proceedings, if any, passed in
consequence of the appointment of both the petitioner and the
private respondent are required to be set aside.
20. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed, and the
orders of appointment dated 31.01.2025 and 26.02.2025
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 06:24:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6491] (10 of 10) [CW-4126/2025]
and consequential proceedings of the private respondent
and petitioner are set aside. Respondents No.1 and 2 are
directed to redraw and are directed to commence the
selection process for filling the post of Head of the
Department by duly taking into consideration the inter se
seniority between the petitioner and the private
respondent in the cadre of Professor, and to make the
appointment in terms of Section 8(1)(c) of the Act of 1962.
21. The said exercise shall be done within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of this order.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand dispose of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
287s-288s-PoonamS/-
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 06:24:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
