Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suman Matwa vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 November, 2018
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 17039/2018
1. Suman Matwa D/o Hardev Matwa, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Bai Pura, Gothan, District Nagaur (Raj.) (Posted As
Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, Chidiyanath Ji Ka Dhuna,
Mandiyai, P.s. Tinwari, District Jodhpur.).
2. Ramkumar S/o Bachchoo Singh, Aged About 27 Years,
Village Hansai, Post Dhanora, Tehsil Bari, District Dholpur
(Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, Garhi
Khirana, P.s. Bari, District Dholpur).
3. Lakhanti Meena D/o Sardar Meena, Aged About 27 Years,
Village Jharoda, Post Batoda, Tehsil Bamanwas, District
Sawai Madhopur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii
Level-I At Gps, Garhi Khirana, P.s. Bari, District Dholpur).
4. Rajendra Singh Nehra S/o Lichhaman, Aged About 33
Years, Village And Post Harsawa Bara, Tehsil Fatehpur,
District Sikar (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii
Social Science At Gps, Mandora, P.s. Bari, District
Dholpur).
5. Bachchhraj Meena S/o Bhagwan Singh Meena, Aged
About 28 Years, Village Kankarai, Post Noksonda, Tehsil
Bari, District Dholpur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii
Level-I At Gps, Dabokapura, P.s. Bari, District Dholpur).
6. Goutam Giri Goswami S/o Lal Giri Goswami, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Village Ummedpura, Post Umand, Tehsil
Kapasan, District Chittorgarh (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher
Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, Dabela, Ps.s. Bari Sadri, District
Chittorgarh).
7. Satya Narayan Gujar S/o Jai Ram Gujar, Aged About 33
Years, Village And Post Bheepur, Via Diggi, Tehsil Malpura,
District Tonk (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I
At Gups, Rajane Ki Dhimri, P.s. Bari, District Dholpur).
8. Seema Kumari Garg D/o Santosh Kumar Agrawal, Aged
About 37 Years, C/o Hari Prasad Deendayal, Purani Anaj
Mandi, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.).
(Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gups,
Tursangpura, P.s. Sapotra, District Karauli).
9. Lata Meena D/o Ramjilal Meena, Aged About 27 Years,
Village And Post Khanpur Meena, Tehsil Bari, District
(2 of 7) [CW-17039/2018]
Dholpur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At
Gps, Paguli, P.s. Bari, District Dholpur).
10. Mausami Meena D/o Gyasi Ram Meena, Aged About 28
Years, Village Nandrauli, Post Umreh, Tehsil Bari, District
Dholpur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At
Gps, Ahmedpur, P.s. Bari, District Dholpur).
11. Maneesha Meena D/o Harivilas, Aged About 27 Years,
Village And Post Khanpur Meena, Tehsil Bari, District
Dholpur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At
Gps, Hussaipur, P.s. Bari, District Dholpur).
12. Lajja Ram Meena S/o Ratan Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
Village Mugalpura, Post Sarmathura, Tehsil Sarmathura,
District Dholpur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii
Level-I At Gups, Chilakhur (Anghai), P.s. Baseri, District
Dholpur).
13. Kallu Singh Meena, Aged About 29 Years, Village And Post
Madasil, Tehsil Sarmathura, District Dholpur (Raj.).
(Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, Gyadaspura,
P.s. Baseri, District Dholpur).
14. Mamta Meena D/o Arjun Meena, Aged About 30 Years,
W/o Dunger Singh Meena, Village And Post Kant, Via
Achrol, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.). (Posted As
Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gups, Padiyal Aasolat, P.s.
Phalodi, District Jodhpur).
15. Dhooji Lal Meena S/o Chhote Lal Meena, Aged About 28
Years, Village Nandarauli, Post Umreh, Tehsil Bari, District
Dholpur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At
Gps, Murawali, P.s. Bari, District Dholpur).
16. Guddi Meena D/o Rang Lal Meena, Aged About 29 Years,
W/o Omprakash Meena, Village And Post Khohara, Tehsil
Todabhim, District Karauli (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher
Grade Iii Level-I At Gups, Dubepura, P.s. Saipau, District
Dholpur).
17. Sanjay S/o Rameshwar Singh, Aged About 34 Years,
Village Ramnathpura, Post Bhobia, Tehsil Surajgarh,
District Jhunjhnu (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii
Level-I At Gups, Beechiya, P.s. Dholpur, District Dholpur).
18. Neha Pathak D/o Munna Baboo Pathak, Aged About 26
Years, R/o 1-A-37, Mahaveer Nagar Extension, Near Lbs
School, Kota (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I
At Gups, Beechhiya, P.s. Dholpur, District Dholpur).
(3 of 7) [CW-17039/2018]
19. Kamini D/o Suresh Kumar Baghera, Aged About 27 Years,
W/o Sandeep Kumar Riyar, R/o Anand Naghar Colony,
Saipau Road, Dholpur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii
Level-I At Gups, Moroli Ka Pura, P.s. Dholpur, District
Dholpur).
20. Karuna Sharma D/o Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About
26 Years, W/o Manish Sharma, R/o Bajrang Colony,
Ghanta Ghar Road, Dholpur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher
Grade Iii Level-Ii Science Maths At Gups, Bhilgawan, P.s.
Dholpur, District Dholpur).
21. Alka Shukla D/o Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged About 36
Years, W/o Ramkant Katara, R/o 32-B, Lajpat Nagar,
Jagatpura, Jaipur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii
Level-I At Gups, Bhamroli, P.s. Dholpur, District Dholpur).
22. Preeti Sharma D/o Satish Kumar Sharma, Aged About 27
Years, Main Market, Bari Road, Saipau, District Dholpur
(Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii Science
Maths At Ggups, Gogali, P.s. Saipau, District Dholpur).
23. Preeti Bansal D/o Kailash Chandra Bansal, Aged About 28
Years, Radha Kishan Colony, Nai Collectory Ke Samne,
Gulab Bagh, Dholpur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii
Level-Ii Science Maths At Gups, Umrana Krimpur, P.s.
Saipau, District Dholpur).
24. Soniya Chandela D/o Bhikam Singh, Aged About 29
Years, W/o Ramkesh, R/o 27, Gurjar Basti, Kharagpur,
Dholpur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii
Science Maths At Gups, Kajipura, P.s. Dholpur, District
Dholpur).
25. Tara Kumari D/o Bheekam Singh Chandola, Aged About
34 Years, Near Chopara Mahadev Mandir, Dholpur (Raj.).
(Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii Science Maths At
Gups, Khanpura, P.s. Dholpur, District Dholpur).
26. Madhu Tyagi D/o Rajveer Sigh, Aged About 32 Years, W/o
Rajesh Tyagi, R/o Tyagi Bhawan, Behind Government
Hospital, Old City, Dholpur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher
Grade Iii Level-Ii Science Maths At Gups, Sanda, P.s.
Dholpur, District Dholpur).
27. Annpurna Sharma D/o Gajanand Sharma, Aged About 38
Years, Police Line Ke Pass, Kumbhanagar Karnimata Ka
Khera, Chittorgarh (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii
Level-I At Gps, Palanpur, P.s. Begun, District Chittorgarh).
(4 of 7) [CW-17039/2018]
28. Tarachand Bawari S/o Dhannaram, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o 2 Kwm, Bikaner (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii
Level-I At Gups, Brahmno Ki Dhani, Thambariya, P.s.
Khinwsar, District Nagaur).
29. Manju Chaubisa D/o Inderlal Chaubisa, Aged About 28
Years, W/o Mukesh Chaubisa, R/o Dhawadiya, Zawar
Mines, Udaipur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-
I At Gups, Udaipuriya (Jangeer), P.s. Sarada, District
Udaipur).
30. Rajesh Kumar Gurjar S/o Bhonri Lal Gurjar, Aged About
29 Years, Village Herapura, Post Dhula Rawji, Tehsi
Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher
Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, Manani Meghwalo Ki Dhani,
Vankalpura, Ramliyala, P.s. Gudamalani, District Barmer).
31. Chhagan Lal S/o Hansa Ram, Aged About 32 Years,
Village And Post Chandrai, Ward No.9, Ramadevji Gali,
Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher
Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, Medhakhurd, P.s. Raniwara,
District Jalore).
32. Hansraj Choudhary S/o Mukat Choudhary, Aged About 27
Years, Village And Post Luhara, Tehsil Newai, District Tonk
(Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii Social Science
At Gups, Bharataniyo Ki Dhani, Alapura, P.s. Gudamalani,
District Barmer).
33. Pooja Yadav D/o Shankar Lal Yadav, Aged About 31 Years,
Ward No. 12, Ratangarh, District Churu (Raj.). (Posted As
Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii Science Maths At Gups, Palasiya
Kalan, Pavta, P.s. Ahore, 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, Barmer.
4. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Barmer.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dholpur.
6. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Dholpur.
7. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh.
(5 of 7) [CW-17039/2018]
8. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Chittorgarh.
9. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Karauli.
10. The District Education, Elementary, Karauli.
11. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur.
12. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Jodhpur.
13. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.
14. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Nagaur.
15. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Udaipur.
16. The District Education Officer, Udaipur.
17. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalore.
18. The District Education Officer, Jalore.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Singh Choudhary.
For Respondent(s) :
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
01/11/2018
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 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
(6 of 7) [CW-17039/2018]
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-17039/2018]
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.
(DINESH MEHTA),J.
Sumit-471 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)