Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pawan Kumar Soni vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 December, 2018
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 18556/2018
1. Pawan Kumar Soni S/o Shnkar Lal Soni, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Village And Post Mokhunda, Tehsil Raipur,
District Bhilwara (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level
- Ii Science Maths At Ggups,khankhala, P.s. Sahada,
District Bhilwara).
2. Mrs. Hemlata Joshi D/o Ramesh Chandra Joshi, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Village Lalpur, Post Pipli Ahiran, Via
Kunwaria, Tehsil And District Rajsamand (Raj.) (Posted As
Teacher Grade Iii Level - I At Gpus, Bikrai, P.s. Sahada,
District Bhilwara).
3. Prakash Chandra Ahir S/o Mangi Lal Ahir, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village Laxmipura, Post Sargaon, Tehisl
Sahada, District Bhilwara (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher
Grade Iii Level - Ii Science Maths At Gups, Laxmipura, P.s.
Sahada, District Bhilwara).
4. Suman Salvi D/o Mangi Lal Salvi, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Village And Post Koshithal, Tehsil Sahada, District
Bhilwara (Raj.) (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level - I At
Gps, Bhilkhera (Koshithal), P.s. Sahada, District
Bhilwara).
5. Hans Raj Meena S/o Shaitan Singh Meena, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village Sunder Gargh, Post Ulela, Tehsil
Jahazpur, District Bhilwara (Raj.) (Posted As Teacher
Grade Iii Level - I At Gps, Hari Singh Ka Khara, Ralayata,
P.s. Mandalgarh, District Bhiwlara).
6. Manka Meena D/o Ganpat Lal Meena, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village Sundar Garh, Post Ulela, Tehsil
Jahazpur, District Bhilwara (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher
Grade Iii Level - I At Gps, Dang Ka Ghopara, Peeploond,
P.s. Jahazpur, District Bhilwara).
7. Mukesh Kumar Chhipa S/o Madan Lal Chhipa, Aged About
39 Years, R/o H-104, Behind Of Ramdham, Azad Nagar,
Bhilwara (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level - Ii
Science Maths At Gups, Tokra, Mota Ka Khera, P.s.
Mandal, District Bhilwara).
8. Shishram S/o Bhagaram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Village And Post Thikariya, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District
Sikar (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level - I At Gps,
(2 of 7) [CW-18556/2018]
Bateri (Thana), P.s. Mandal, District Bhilwara).
9. Shweta D/o Ram Ratan W/o Lalchand Dhak, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Village Dhaka Ka Bas, Post Bhagera, Tehsil
Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher
Grade Iii Level - Ii Science Maths At Gups, Khatola,
Negdiya, P.s. Asind, District Bhilwara).
10. Madan Lal Bawaria S/o Chhitar Mal Bawaria, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Village Dantala Gurjaran, Via Gathwari,
Tehsil Jamwa Ramgarh, District Jaipur (Raj.) (Posted As
Teacher Grade Iii Level - I At Gps, Gopalpura (Bhojpura),
P.s. Asind, District Bhilwara).
11. Pooja Meena D/o Kajod Mal Mena, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Village And Post Hapawas, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan,
District Dausa (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level -
I Gups, Govindpura, P.s. Asind, District Bhiilwara).
12. Arjun Rawal S/o Pratap Rawal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Village Bagjna, Post Goverdhanpura, Tehsil Karera,
District Bhilwara (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level
- I T Gps, Nayagher, Tejdai (Nareli), P.s. Mandal, District
Bhilwara).
13. Latur Lal Meena S/o Phundi Lal Meena, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Village Fatehgarh, Gram Panchayat Thana,
Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher
Grade Iii Level - I Gps, Bhiloki Jaleri, Nayanagar, P.s.
Bijoliya, District Bhilwara).
14. Ramlal Nayak S/o Lunaram Nayak, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o 110 Kalsans, Brahmano Ka Mohalla, Tehsil And
District Bhilwara (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level
- I At Gups, Khatankheri, Upreda, P.s. Banera, District
Bhilwara).
15. Ashok Kumar Meghwal S/o Narsi Ram, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Village And Post Klasar , Tehsil And District
Bikaner (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level - I T
Gps, Dhaninaykan, Khajoda, Nandra, P.s. Kolayat, District
Bhilwara).
16. Priyanka Dhabhai D/o Satyanarayan Dhabhai, Aged About
31 Years, R/o A-490, Behind Kumbha School, Azad Nagar,
Bhilwara (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level - I At
Gups, Bhainsa Kundal, Devli, P.s. Suwana, District
Bhilwara).
17. Kanta Kumari Bhambhi D/o Sukh Lal Bhambhi, Aged
(3 of 7) [CW-18556/2018]
About 27 Years, R/o 11/223, Near Church, Azad Nagar,
Bhilwara (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level - I At
Gps, Brahmpuri, Danthal, P.s. Suwana, District Bhilwara).
18. Harish Khoiwal S/o Satyanarayan Khoiwal, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Tilak Nagar, B-732/2, Main Road, Bhilwara
(Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level - I At Gps, Bhilo
Ka Khera, Kariyala, Ganglas, P.s. Asind, District Bhilwara).
19. Kailash Chandra Khatik S/o Om Prakash Khatik, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o 368, Jat Mohalla, Ghatti,
Hameergarh, Bhilwara (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade
Iii Level - Ii Social Science At Gups, Nagpura, Ratanpura,
P.s. Asind, District Bhilwara).
20. Mukesh Kumar Bairwa S/o Nathu Lal Bairwa, Aged About
28 Years, R/o 217, Regar Mohalla, Kheda, Rajpura Ka
Rasta, Sangariya, Tehsil Pooliya Kalan, District Bhilwara
(Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level - I At Gps,
Malnas Jindraas, P.s. Asind, District Bhilwara).
21. Ram Sahya Bariwa S/o Babu Lal Bairwa, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Village Kanwarpura, Post Niwariya, Tehsil Deoli,
District Tonk (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level - I
At Gups, Rajpura, Titoli, P.s. Asind, District Bhilwara).
22. Dharamraj Gujar S/o Shanker Gujar, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Kalinjari Gate Ke Bahar, Shahpura, District
Bhilwara (Raj.) (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level - I At
Gps, Chamaron Ka Khera, Mushi, P.s. Banera, District
Bhilwara).
23. Nirmalal Bai Bairwa D/o Laxmi Narayan Bairwa, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Bamor, Tehsil And
District Tonk (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level - I
At Gps, Balion Ka Jhonpra, Bhagunagar, P.s. Jahazpur,
District Bhilwara).
24. Nand Kishor Bairwa S/o Gopi Lal Bairwa, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village And Post Niawariya, Tehsil Deoli,
District Tonk (Raj.) (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level - I
At Gps, Kashi Ram Ji Ka Khera, Etmariya, P.s. Shahpura,
District Bhilwara).
25. Reshma Bano D/o Mohammad Salim, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Shiv Colony, Ajmer Road, Kekri, District Ajmer
(Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level - I At Gups,
Kohda, P.s. Kekri District Ajmer).
26. Lad Khamar S/o Cheetar Lal Khamar, Aged About 29
(4 of 7) [CW-18556/2018]
Years, R/o Village And Post Baroda, Tehsil Jahazpur,
District Bhilwara (Raj.) (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level
- I At Gps, Rano Ka Kheda, P.s. Mandal, District Bhilwara).
27. Rajneesh Kant Meena S/o Soraj Meena, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Village Nathadhand, Post Baroda, Tehsil
Jahazpur, District Bhilwara (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher
Grade Iii Level - I At Gps, Bhandaniya Kheda, Mandpiya,
P.s. Gangraj, District Chittorgarh).
28. Seema Kumara Bairwa D/o Pursharam Bairwa, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Village Rampura, Post Agucha, Tehsil
Hurda, District Bhilwara (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade
Iii Level - I At Gups, Bhatra, P.s. Banera, District
Bhilwara).
29. Shyam Lal Jeengar S/o Jagdish Chandra Jeengar, Aged
About 39 Years, R/o Alankar Shoe Makers, Naya Bazar,
Shahpura, District Bhiwlara (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher
Grade Iii Level - I At Gps, Madhu Ba Ka Khera, Jindraas,
P.s. Asind, District Bhilwara).
30. Bajrang Lal Dhakar S/o Ramkrishan Dhakar, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Inside Dhakar Mohalla, Shahpura, District
Bhilwara (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level - I
Gps, Bhilo Ka Jhopra, Diyas, Arwad, P.s. Shahpura,
District Bhilwara).
31. Sunita Meena D/o Sohan Lal Meena, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Village Morla, Post Amrvasi, Tehisl Jahazpur,
District Bhilwara (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level
- I At Gps, Amedkar Colony (Umcha), P.s. Jahazpur,
District Bhilwara).
32. Nareshi Bai Meena D/o Sanval Ram Meena, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Village And Post Bichhochh, Tehsil
Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.). (Posted As
Teacher Grade Iii Level - I At Gups, Ruppura, P.s. Mandal,
District Bhilwara).
33. Neelu Kanwar D/o Gajendra Damami, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Village And Post Binchawa, Tehsil Didwana,
District Nagaur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level
- I At Gps, Mal Ka Khera, P.s. Banera, District Bhilwara).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Rural
(5 of 7) [CW-18556/2018]
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Elementary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara.
4. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Bhilwara.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner.
6. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Bikaner.
7. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ajmer.
8. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Ajmer.
9. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh.
10. The District Education Officer, Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.R. Siyag.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 06/12/2018 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by Jaipur Bench of this Hon'ble Court in case of Surja Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. - SBCW No.3082/2018, decided on 09.02.2018. The judgment reads as under:-
"The controversy raised in the instant writ application is no more res-integra in view of the adjudication made in the case of Suman Bai & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court observed 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 mapplication 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 (6 of 7) [CW-18556/2018] 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 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 (7 of 7) [CW-18556/2018] 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."
Applying the principle, as extracted hereinabove, to the facts of the case at hand the factual position emerges is that the petitioners participated in the recruitment process in response to advertisement issued by Zila Parishad in the year 2012, inviting the applications from the eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners earlier instituted writ applications and as a consequence of directions issued by this Court, the result was revised in the month of November, 2016; resulting into appointment of the petitioners on the post of Teacher Grade III (Level I/Level-II).
Undeniably, the petitioners have already been accorded appointment. However, State-respondents have declined seniority and other benefits to the petitioners from the date the petitioners became entitled on account of revision of the result while candidates lower in merit to the petitioners have been accorded those benefits. Thus, the petitioners have claimed benefit of pay fixation and seniority on notional basis from the date juniors to the petitioners, have been accorded in the same recruitment process of the year 2012.
Accordingly, the State-respondents are directed to extend the benefit of pay fixation and seniority on notional basis to the petitioners from the date junior(s) to the petitioner(s) has/have been accorded with reference to the same recruitment process of the year of 2012.
In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the issue of petitioners in terms of the judgment of Surja Ram (Supra) by a speaking order within a period of 30 days from today.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 187-Rmathur/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)