Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajni vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 August, 2020
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6624/2020
1. Rajni D/o Bihar Lal, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of J-
104, Behind Bijalighar, Pratapnagar, Jodhpur. Posted At
Gps, Soindalo Ki Dhani, Subdand, P.s. Luni, District
Jodhpur.
2. Pooja Sahu D/o Ramesh Chand Sahu, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of Village Post Saredi, Tehsil Manohar
Thana, District Jhalawar. Posted At G Ups Udaipuriya,
District Jhalawar.
3. Savitri Bai S/o Ram Narayan Gurjar, Aged About 32 Years,
W/o Chandra Pal Gurjar, Resident Of Village Aavanlheda,
Tehsil Manoharthana, District Jhalawar. Posted At Gups
Manyakhedi, District Jhalawar.
4. Mukesh Kumar Meena S/o Sita Ram Meena, Aged About
32 Years, Resident Of Village Thikriya Baragaon, District
Dausa. Posted At Gups Muthana, P.s. Desuri, District Pali.
5. Rekha Saini S/o Jagdish Prasad Mali, Aged About 34
Years, Resident Of Kumharo Ka Mohalla, Todaraisingh,
District Tonk. Posted At Gps Bijarani Mahadev, Parlu, P.s.
Balotra, District Barmer
6. Om Prakash Nagar S/o Mahaveer Nagar, Aged About 35
Years, Resident Of Village Manpura, Post Smidhi, Tehsil
Nainwan, District Bundi. Posted At Gups Haripura
Nayagaov, Block And District Bundi.
7. Keshav Meena S/o Gulab Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/
o Langra, Village Kasiyapura, Tehsil Mandrail, District
Karauli. Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii Sanskrit At
Gups, Ramdeora Oraniya, Pipaliya, P.s. Mundwa, District
Nagaur.
8. Rekha Kumari Baranda D/o Amrit Lal Baranda, Aged
About 31 Years, Resident Of Rastapal, Rasta, District
Dungarpur. Posted At Gps Rakhod Rasta, P.s. Simalwada,
District Dungarpur.
9. Rekha Kumari Nanoma D/o Ganesh Lal Nanoma, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Maragiya Bhilva,
Panchela, District Dungarpur (Raj.). Posted As Teacher
Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, Ramsaur Bedsa, P.s. Simalwada,
District Dungarpur.
(Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 08:46:38 PM)
(2 of 6) [CW-6624/2020]
10. Renu Kumari D/o Phoolchand Verma, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Vijay Nagar Colony Ward No.8 Kardam Doctor
Near Heeradas Bharatput, District Bhartpur(Raj.) Posted
As Teacher Grade Iii L-I At Gps Kanjar Basti P.s
Chittorgarh District Chittorgarh.
11. Sunita Mahawar D/o Raghuveer Prasad Mahawar, Aged
About 33 Years, Resident Of Shrinagar Banden, Tehsil
Rajgarh, District Alwar. Posted At Gps Patan Kalan, P.s.
Tijara, District Alwar.
12. Kanchan Damor D/o Ratan Lal Damor, Aged About 37
Years, W/o Manoj Kumar Damor, Resident Of Patel Fala,
Bhainshla Mandali, P.s. Simlawara, District Dungarpur.
Posted At Gps, Bariya Fala, Jhalap, P.s. Simlawara, District
Dungarpur.
13. Kamal Kishor S/o Dhirendra Kumar Tailor, Aged About 33
Years, Resident Of Keshav Tailor, Near Sabji Mandi,
Phulera, District Jaipur. Posted At Gsss Barsani, Block
Asind, District Bhilwara.
14. Jawahar Lal Roat S/o Leela Ram Roat, Aged About 32
Years, Resident Of Ward No. 21, Chak Mahundi,
Dungarpur. Posted At Gups Tham Ka Talab, P.s.
Simalwara, District Dungarpur.
15. Kusum Lata D/o Praveen Kumar, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident Of Meghwalo Ka Chhota Bas, Sadri, District Pali.
Posted At Gps Ravo Ka Sayara, P.s. Sayara, District
Udaipur.
16. Neetu Gupta D/o Niranjan Lal Agrawal, Aged About 40
Years, Resident Of 173, 173, Hiran Magri, Sectro -8,
Udaipur. Posted At Ggups Palanakhurd, Block Mavli,
District Udaipur.
17. Babeeta Yadav W/o Abhay Yadav, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident Of Shakun Sadan, Behind Taxshila School,
Teachers Colony, Behror, District Alwar. Posted At Gps
Jhagira Ka Bas, Piplana, Block Tizara, District Alwar.
18. Nirma Yadav D/o Dharam Chand, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of Alipur Ki Dhani, Post Banethi, Tehsil Kotputli,
District Jaipur. Posted At Gps Annatpura, Lekari, Block
Bansur, District Alwar.
19. Vinod Kumar S/o Amichand, Aged About 38 Years,
Resident Of Vpo Gadoj, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar.
Posted At Gps Moji Ki Dhani, Block Bansur, District Alwar.
(Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 08:46:38 PM)
(3 of 6) [CW-6624/2020]
20. Munni Meena D/o Sita Ram Meena, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of Matsya Pg College, Bansur, Tehsil Bansur,
District Alwar. Posted At Gps Dhani Motisingh Ki, Peeo
Giruri, P.s. Bansur, District Alwar.
21. Ishwar Lal Roat S/o Leela Ram Roat, Aged About 33
Years, Resident Of Ward No. 21, Chak Mahundi,
Dungarpur. Posted At Gups Tham Ka Talab, P.s.
Simalwara, District Dungarpur.
22. Lala Ram S/o Joonja Ram, Aged About 27 Years, Resident
Of Village Balikheda, Panchla, District Jalore Posted At
Gups Kot Ki Dhani, Raniwara, District Jalore.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur.
4. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Jodhpur.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalore.
6. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Jalore.
7. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhalawar
8. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Jhalawar.
9. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali.
10. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Pali.
11. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer.
12. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Barmer
13. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bundi
14. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Bundi
15. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur
16. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Nagaur
17. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur
18. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Dungarpur
19. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh
20. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Chittorgarh
21. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar
(Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 08:46:38 PM)
(4 of 6) [CW-6624/2020]
22. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Alwar
23. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara
24. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Bhilwara
25. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Udaipur
26. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Udaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Singh Choudhary (on
VC)
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 06/08/2020 In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts.
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 Court in case of Surja Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. - S.B.C.W. 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 Divisionm 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 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 (Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 08:46:38 PM) (5 of 6) [CW-6624/2020] 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 barred by resjudicata or otherwise improperly constituted.
7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to treat the (Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 08:46:38 PM) (6 of 6) [CW-6624/2020] 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, strictly in accordance with law.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 77-Sudheer/-
(Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 08:46:38 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)