[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Naresh Kumar Verma vs The State Of Rajasthan on 17 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5803/2026
Naresh Kumar Verma S/o Sukhram Raigar, Aged About 38 Years,
R/o C.r.p.f. Camp Ke Pass, Ramgarh Road, Lalwas, Tehsil Amer,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
School Education Department, Govt. Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.
4. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education
(Headquarter), Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hans Raj Nimbar for
Mr. R. P. Saini
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
17/03/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the same
recruitment, Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case of Om Prakash
& Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.21214/2017, vide its order dated 21.11.2017 granted relief to
the petitioners following the judgment in the case of Hemlata
Shrimali & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.3247/2015, decided on 1.4.2015, which was based
upon adjudication made in the case of Suman Bai & Anr. v. State
of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:04:17 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-5803/2026]
2. Stating that Coordinate Bench has decided many of petitions,
without issuing notices to the respondents (SB Civil Writ Petition
No.21214/2017), learned counsel submits that the present writ
petition may also be decided in light of judgment in the case of
Om Prakash (supra). Relevant part of the order in case of Om
Prakash (supra) reads thus :
"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
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:04:17 PM)
(3 of 4) [CW-5803/2026]
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) 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 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.
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:04:17 PM)
(4 of 4) [CW-5803/2026]
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."
3. In view of the aforesaid, following the judgment in case of
Om Prakash (supra), the writ petition is disposed of on same
terms.
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 petitioner
would be entitled to the relief.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
120-A.Arora/-
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:04:17 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
