[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Divya Panchal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13670) on 23 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:13670]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6243/2026
Divya Panchal D/o Shri Prem Chand, W/o Shri Vishal Panchal,
Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Post Dhambola, Tehsil
Simalwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
3. The District Education Officer, (Elementary Education)
Rajsamand.
4. The District Education Officer, (Elementary Education)
Dungarpur.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanwar Singh
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
23/03/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the same
recruitment, similarly situated petitioners had approached this
Court at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.21214/2017 titled Om Prakash & Ors. vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. Said petition was decided vide order dated
21.11.2017 granting relief to petitioners in light of judgment dated
01.04.2015 passed in the case of Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
3247/2015, while also relying upon adjudication undertaken in
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 10:38:10 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13670] (2 of 4) [CW-6243/2026]
the case of Suman Bai & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.:
2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381. It is therefore prayed that present
writ petition may also be decided in light of judgment passed in
the case of Om Prakash (supra).
2. In Om Prakash (supra), this Court at Jaipur, after noticing
orders passed in the cases 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 t is 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
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 10:38:10 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13670] (3 of 4) [CW-6243/2026]
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.
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 24 th May,
2017, as extracted herein above.
Ordered accordingly."
3. In view of the submissions made, present writ petition filed
is also disposed of in light of order passed in the case of Om
Prakash (supra).
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 10:38:10 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13670] (4 of 4) [CW-6243/2026]
4. Order has been passed based on the submissions made in
the petition; however, respondents would be free to examine the
veracity of the submissions made in the petition and, only if the
averments made therein are found to be correct, would the
petitioners be entitled to the relief.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
25-shashikant/-
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 10:38:10 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
